Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 248 of 393 (756714)
04-25-2015 12:16 PM


Moderator On Duty
I'm still here. Please keep discussion within reasonable limits.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 297 of 393 (757008)
05-01-2015 3:42 PM


Moderator On Duty
Please discuss the topic and not each other. Declaring someone wrong is only justified once they've been shown wrong. One doesn't have to explore every cranny of a hall of mirrors to know that that's what it is. Things that make sense and are supported by evidence can be explained and made clear to others. Someone with a sound sense of science would recognize that valid criticisms exist on more levels than just the mathematical: absence of mathematical mistakes is just a prerequisite and by itself demonstrates nothing.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 300 of 393 (757072)
05-02-2015 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Dubreuil
05-02-2015 1:15 PM


Re: cleanup of loose ends
Dubreuil writes:
But as stated before, this place is too offensive to take part again in an extensive discussion. You also became somehow offensive.
Please discuss the topic and not other people.
GIGO means "garbage in, garbage out". I would not call your comments garbage.
I think you're having a language problem. GIGO does stand for "garbage in, garbage out", but that's a common catchphrase that means, "If the data's no good then the even the best math produces wrong answers." It isn't equating you or your comments to garbage.
This paper was revised multiple times during the last year through comments from people who really was concerned with the paper. If there wouldn't have been that much comments about it from April 2014 to March 2015, then it could not have been extended and revised that often. Therefore I'm really sure that the content of the paper is correct.
That your paper has been through any review process by qualified people is not apparent to anyone here. It's hard to believe that any qualified person would have failed to point out the fatal flaw in assuming randomness in TV episode introductions, or to call to your attention the lack of any connection between your "research" on the one hand and ID and a triune God on the other.
That you're for the most part ignoring such criticisms is causing people to become more strident. Putting one's hands over one's ears is why people begin shouting. You've even been ignoring this moderator, making it very difficult for me to help discussion along. You complained about Dr Adequate who felt you were ignoring his criticisms, but you were ignoring me at the same time. I posted that I would allow Dr Adequate's posts until I obtained a response from you. But did you respond to me, or to anyone else about the fundamental criticisms? No. You're the primary cause of your own difficulties.
It takes a long time to read the paper completely and to understand it. Without the background it takes even longer.
There's nothing particularly difficult to understand about your paper, and it requires no special background. The errors it makes are simple and fundamental. If you're serious about improving your paper then you'll stay and work through the problems.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Dubreuil, posted 05-02-2015 1:15 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 303 of 393 (757082)
05-02-2015 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Dubreuil
05-02-2015 4:29 PM


Dubreuil writes:
t was not assumed pure randomness, it was assumed a coincidental contribution.
I know you've got your own way of describing it, but the bottom line is that you haven't taken into account the non-random nature of your data source.
The 1:10^7 probability on its own could also indicate a pattern created by humans or restraints.
There's no point in continually referencing a probability figure that has convinced no one it isn't bogus.
The reference about a triune God was presented in the appendices D-I (20 pages) or very short in Message 245. To actually understand this you have to read this 20 pages. Message 245 is only a very short summation.
I shall not attempt to resolve your bizarrely contradictory comments about God. You've both argued for God Message 245 and disavowed God Message 177.
I responded to your request from Message 186 and Message 232 at the end of Message 233.
There are no replies to either Message 186 or Message 232. If you're going to tuck responses to multiple messages into a single message then your responses are going to be missed. I would have cautioned you about this myself except that others have cautioned you about this already, to no avail. You seem determined to reject all advice and feedback.
NoNukes refused to name specific criticism, then I answered to all criticism he ever mentioned in Message 276 again. As reaction he stopped discussing in Message 278.
NoNukes was very specific in his criticism (as were others) but you never seemed to get the point.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Dubreuil, posted 05-02-2015 4:29 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 306 of 393 (757110)
05-03-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Dubreuil
05-03-2015 12:13 PM


Moderator Facilitation
Dubreuil writes:
Do you have ever seen this image from page 6?
Url:
There is no transition from E1 to E3. There is no transition from E1 to E5. There is no transition from E1 to E9.
There is only one transition from E1 to E2.
I could also show you other obvious mistakes you made by referring to the paper. But I have no reason to do so.
RAZD will have to confirm, but I think you may again be misinterpreting what he is saying. He isn't saying that your paper contains transitions from E1 to E3, or from E1 to E5, or from E1 to E9. He's saying that your paper fails to consider the evidence for such transitions.
I'd like to propose that you back up to the beginning of RAZD's Message 304 and take it one little step at a time:
RAZD writes:
Debreuil writes:
For E1 there are 25 occurrences that fit with the pattern (P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4, P.BW-, P.Da-) and 26 occurrences that break the pattern (*P.En, M3, M10, M11, M12, M14, P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.Da+, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-).
And here you make several errors.
First P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4 are not elements of E1.
If RAZD is incorrect about this, it would be very helpful if his error could be explained.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Dubreuil, posted 05-03-2015 12:13 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2015 9:52 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 313 of 393 (757207)
05-04-2015 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Dubreuil
05-04-2015 12:19 PM


Debreuil Suspended 24 Hours
Hi Dubreuil,
You're both posting more messages and insisting you won't discuss here anymore. Posting while not discussing is especially frowned upon here. Your recent messages have been full of personal criticisms and short on substance, and you continue to exhibit evidence of a language issue, for example by repeating your mistake of misinterpreting GIGO as a personal insult equating you and/or your ideas to garbage.
I'm going to make it easy for you to not discuss here for the next 24 hours by suspending you. If you return tomorrow then I'll be expecting greater attention to the substance of the criticisms being directed at your paper.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Dubreuil, posted 05-04-2015 12:19 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 317 of 393 (757539)
05-10-2015 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Dubreuil
05-09-2015 11:10 AM


Dubreuil writes:
The paper was now accepted for a peer-review.
By who?
For this purpose the paper was modified to support an intriguing pattern in unconscious human decision processes.
Is this the new paper: About quantising unconscious decision processes and their origin. It's dated 3/31/2014, over a year ago. The first paper you gave us was dated this year, 4/3/2015. I see you also removed mention of the triune God from the title and from the body of the paper. The paper appears very similar to the original.
I've also found a copy of what looks like a very similar paper by you and your co-author here: About quantising unconscious decision processes and their origin and proving Intelligent Design. It's also from last year, dated 4/6/2014. By the way, who is your co-author Sergii Koliada and why isn't he here?
I won't tell you where it was accepted for a peer-review. It is most likely that they will withdraw their acceptance if someone would tell them it is only a skeleton paper which ultimately supports ID.
These concerns have no foundation. No one would do that and objectivity demands that they wouldn't listen anyway. Who accepted it for peer review?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Dubreuil, posted 05-09-2015 11:10 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 338 of 393 (759460)
06-11-2015 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by GaryG
06-10-2015 10:53 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
Hi Gary,
Rather than co-opting a thread for one ID theory to discuss a different ID theory, could I suggest that you post a proposal to discuss your theory over at Proposed New Topics. Once I promote your thread discussion would shift over there.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 10:53 PM GaryG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by GaryG, posted 06-11-2015 6:47 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 341 by GaryG, posted 06-12-2015 12:39 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 343 of 393 (759500)
06-12-2015 8:16 AM


Moderator Request
Please let's take the quality of debate up a notch and get on topic. If GaryG wishes to have a thread to discuss his work on a theory of ID then he will propose one over at Proposed New Topics. This thread is for discussing Dubreuil's work on a theory of ID.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 353 of 393 (759567)
06-13-2015 8:17 AM


Moderator Request
Please, everyone, the recent discussion is not on topic, and it is also not in the best traditions of this site. Dubreuil is no longer participating, and the current discussion is not about his theory, so I think it would be best if this thread were dormant for now. Should GaryG decide to discuss his work on a theory of ID here he can propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics, but there shouldn't be any discussion of it here.
I see that GaryG is a Planet Source Code Superior Coding contest winner, but that website is not currently active. Maybe GaryG can provide a link to the source code that won the contest.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by GaryG, posted 06-14-2015 11:27 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 386 of 393 (759917)
06-16-2015 6:22 AM


Moderator Ruling: Current Discussion is Off Topic
This thread is for discussing Dubreuil's work on developing a theory of ID, which means the current discussion is off-topic. Dubreuil is not active at present, and while his presence isn't required to discuss his ideas, that isn't happening right now, so this thread should remain dormant for the time being.
Anyone desiring to continue the current discussion should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024