Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 256 of 273 (88596)
02-25-2004 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Percy
02-25-2004 10:53 AM


Re: Curing Delusion
Hi Percy,
First the mild aftershock is SbY's last post since the 23rd
in Message 269. The theme is similar though the tone was a bit more moderate.
But the real blow up is here
Free for All
Religion is Evil!!!
post Message 55
Though he has posted a bit since this explosion, it has been far less often. Maybe he will jump back in but it was written in a very different tone from his other messages and was written like a parting shot.
[This message has been edited by Admin, 02-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 02-25-2004 10:53 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by MrHambre, posted 02-25-2004 12:00 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 257 of 273 (88601)
02-25-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Mammuthus
02-25-2004 11:38 AM


Pulling a Philosopher of Science Out of My...Hat
I'm still waiting for Love Guy ben Yeshua to get back to me on the philosophy of science issue he brought up in the Ohio Science Curriculum thread. Speak, O wise one:
quote:
During the great Kansas evolution debate, I went to visit the professor who was the most authoritative philosopher of science I could find on the KU campus. I asked them their opinion about evolution as science, and they said simply that, in their study of philosophy of science, it was a very poor excuse for the discipline, was very unscientific in its approach. I asked them why they had not made this clear in the midst of the debate then raging, and they said that it was pointless, evolutionists were far too deeply subjective in their belief, and would only rage at him. It was not a scientific controversy, they said, just passionate argumentation, with no interest in either side for the truth.
Just in case you wanted to know.
What I wanted to know is whether he really expected anyone else to believe this. Can you measure probability in negative numbers? Is there a Bayesian statistician inna house?
regards,
Esteban "Least Authoritative" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 11:38 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by nator, posted 02-26-2004 10:02 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 258 of 273 (88604)
02-25-2004 12:09 PM


To Mammuthus: Wow, I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for the pointers.
To MrHambre: He's consistent, anyway. Though he keeps talking about evidence, everything specific he's mentioned has been anecdotal.
--Percy

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 273 (88643)
02-25-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by nator
02-24-2004 10:01 AM


Re: Curing Delusion
Schrafinator,
You note,
So, am I to understand that each person is supposed to have a conversation with god and each person's version of what God's interpretation of the scripture is what will be used for each indivildual's method of tithing?
Precisely. If this is found to be impossible, then there is little point in doing the experiment at all, since "hearkening to God's voice" is so foundational to the recipes in the scriptures. If you cannot hear God speak, and explain what He meant by various passages containing commands, you might as well toss the whole Bible out.
Your study is dead in the water right from the start, then.
It has reportedly been done anectdotally many times. Doing it scientifically, formally, would then be a simple matter of repeating these efforts under the scrutiny of a professional scientist.
(My comment) Well, yes, in the prior plausibility estimate, although done properly, the accumulation of prior plausibility estimates from more authoritative sources would lower the value considerably. As things now stand in my experience, the prior plausibility of Santa Clause is so low as to make the study of the hypothesis a waste of time.
Your query:
Show me the calculations, please.
Let's say that you ask 100 people whether they believe in Santa Claus, and give weights to their replies by their reported experience in geography, and any other statistic (age?) that would make them a more trustworthy authority. Chosen at random, you would get some children, who would say, "Yes." They get a value, .9999, weighted however, rather low, let's say by age, 1, 2, 3, etc. The adults say, "No" so we give them a value, say, of .00001, weighted by their ages. The products of the numbers times the weights, added together, divided by the sum of the weights, gives us some sort of estimate of the prior plausibility. This estimate has been calculated giving the benefit of the doubt to the idea that the idea might conceivably be true in some sense. Most adults would give a value considerably less than .00001, probably zero. But, exact or accurate values of prior plausibilities are not important, since the process is asymptotic at the posterior plausibility end. All that matters here is that a value has been obtained that is very close to zero. Hence, there are better hypotheses to spend our time on.
I explained why and how the religious bias occurs. You basically said "Nuh-uh! YER biased AGAINST Jehovuh cuz you don't believe just cuz I SAY SO!"
I say, and have said, that you are biased against belief in the supernatural because that is a part of the supernatural's agenda for you. The demons that are supposed to exist work hard at convincing you that they don't exist. To use a natural example, suppose you want to know the truth about the mineral mercury, but take no precautions to keep the mercury you are studying out of your brain. Exposing your brain to mercury makes you "mad as a hatter" and perhaps unable to think clearly about mercury's properties, to study them.
Because you cannot explain to me how the evidence found in nature that anyone, regardless of religious belief can examine, shows reason for me to interpret it to mean that the Christian god or demons exists, this is great evidence that you are suffering from extreme religious bias.
Well, we agree that I cannot explain it to you. Nor, when I thought as you thought, could anyone explain it to me. But, I was taught that there are an infinite number of explanations for any finite set of data points, and that explanatory power was bad epistemology. Prediction power, on the other hand, by-passed explanation. That the various studies I have cited have predicted surprising (hence, controversial) outcomes makes their underlying theoretical structure more plausible. Understanding comes from close examination of these studies, repeating them both professionally and personally, not explaining anything.
You are a self-deluded crank.
Is this an ad hominem? And, aren't there rules here about comments like this? Or, are those rules only for creationists?
My "good faith" is this. You deserve a choice, and God, as your judge, needs clear evidence of your own responsibility for your fate. I have given you a choice, as best I could, of steps you could try, to learn something of value. Say, "I choose life." Pray, "deliver me from evil, and talk to me about how to tithe." Inform yourself about what is written in the bible. Study strong inference, H-D methodology, and Bayes' Theorem, and apply them to your ideas about evolution and creation. If you choose not to do these things, and there are bad consequences to that choice, it's on you. All on you.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by nator, posted 02-24-2004 10:01 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Admin, posted 02-25-2004 4:08 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 260 of 273 (88650)
02-25-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-25-2004 3:35 PM


Re: Curing Delusion
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
Is this an ad hominem? And, aren't there rules here about comments like this? Or, are those rules only for creationists?
The Forum Guidelines are there for everyone. The most recent suspension was of an evolutionist.
Schraf seems only the latest arrival at a conclusion now generally shared among those familiar with science and its methods. Board administration has a strong interest in maintaining a civil environment in which productive discourse can flourish, and so protecting members from ad hominems has a high priority.
But placing the crank label upon you is not an appeal to prejudice, i.e., not an ad hominem, because your record here shows how appropriate and deserved the label is. If you believe the label inaccurate then I suggest you work to correct the strong impressions you've given people here by addressing the criticisms of your ideas forthrightly. To this point you've used a "take it or leave it approach", admonishing people that if they do not accept your ideas that they'll have to deal with God. Science does not take a, "I'm right, God says so," approach.

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-25-2004 3:35 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Tamara, posted 02-26-2004 10:49 AM Admin has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 261 of 273 (88795)
02-26-2004 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by MrHambre
02-25-2004 12:00 PM


Re: Pulling a Philosopher of Science Out of My...Hat
Hambre, I completely believe that Steve had a conversation with "the most authoritative philosopher of science I could find on the KU campus.".
Steve was talking to himself in the mirror.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by MrHambre, posted 02-25-2004 12:00 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 273 (88809)
02-26-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Admin
02-25-2004 4:08 PM


Ad hominems
Some have recently claimed here that calling a member a self-deluded crank is not an ad hominem. This is, IMO, completely prejudicial and unfair. While someone may be behaving as an utter jerk (just an example), if I call him a jerk, that is an ad hominem, and poisons the well of dialogue. If a person behaves as a jerk, the aspersions they cast is upon themselves. If I insult them the aspersion I cast is on myself, as one who abandoned rational discourse and stoops to pelting mud.
It seems common in opinionated boards hosting people of very differing views to gang up on the opposition. I hope folks here do not succumb to that temptation, and if they do, they at least let it be done with wit!
[This message has been edited by Tamara, 02-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Admin, posted 02-25-2004 4:08 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Admin, posted 02-26-2004 11:28 AM Tamara has replied
 Message 266 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 1:19 AM Tamara has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 263 of 273 (88818)
02-26-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Tamara
02-26-2004 10:49 AM


Re: Ad hominems
Hi, Tamara!
Board management shares your concerns. As I said above, the Forum Guidelines are there to encourage productive discourse, and rule 3 is very explicit:
  1. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."
But this is not the only rule, and the problem for board administrators and moderators is how to apply the various rules with fairness and balance. For example, Stephen has consistently violated this guideline:
  1. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.
Many have attempted to engage Stephen in rational discussion, but this hasn't proved possible. When reminded of this guideline, Stephen replied that it wasn't his responsibilty to persuade others of his views. He was only responsible for putting the word of the Lord before others, and if they chose to reject it that was their problem. He said he would do no more.
I chose not to suspend Stephen, but neither will I protect him as long as he continues to ignore forum guidelines and prove immune to engagement in productive discussion. Members will be permitted to classify Stephen as a crank (but not jerk or idiot) because this is a valid Internet discussion category, just like troll and lurker. For me to forbid use of this accurate label would be not guideline enforcement but censorship. If Stephen wants to escape the label then he knows what he has to do. Most likely Stephen has no idea how to escape the label, because his behavior here is not something he chose, but a reality he cannot escape, just like Alan Cresswell, he of the perpetual motion machine.
This is a science site. Stephen, especially as a self-proclaimed scientist, will be held to the normal standards of science. To this point Stephen has offered no evidence for his positions, or indeed any hint that he understands what evidence is.
If you think Stephen *is* engaging forthrightly in discussion and has a valid point regarding Bayesianism in this thread, or with his positions in other threads, then perhaps you could help him make his points, because he doesn't seem willing to do that himself.

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Tamara, posted 02-26-2004 10:49 AM Tamara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Tamara, posted 02-26-2004 12:22 PM Admin has replied
 Message 267 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 2:15 AM Admin has not replied

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 273 (88825)
02-26-2004 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Admin
02-26-2004 11:28 AM


Re: Ad hominems
Hi Percy.
Can you provide evidence that the word "crank" has internet-specific definition, like troll? I was unable to find such. I did find this definition:
a whimsically eccentric person (syn: crackpot, nut, nutcase, fruitcake, screwball)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Admin, posted 02-26-2004 11:28 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Admin, posted 02-26-2004 1:28 PM Tamara has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 265 of 273 (88836)
02-26-2004 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Tamara
02-26-2004 12:22 PM


Re: Ad hominems
Tamara writes:
Can you provide evidence that the word "crank" has internet-specific definition...
Check out Cranks, Trolls and Other Blessings of the Online World where I provide an excerpt from the book Emergence. Type "internet crank" (including the quotes) into Google. Ask yourself why it's okay for Stephen to call his fellow members "possessed by demons" but not okay for them to call him a crank.
I called crank a "valid Internet discussion category." The particular term used isn't important as long as it is accurately descriptive, so perhaps if you don't like it you can suggest some appropriate synonyms.
The important point I was making was that I will permit people to call Stephen a crank because the term accurately describes his behavior. You have chosen to quibble about terminology instead of defending Stephen's behavior, so I assume you agree with the assessment. Since no one else here has been able to influence Stephen, perhaps instead of debating with me you could attempt to convince Stephen to follow the guidelines. Or perhaps you could use your time to complete the discussion you began in Why is uniformitarianim still taught?.
This should be the last post about this here. Extended discussion about board administration and moderation normally takes place in Suggestions and Questions.

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Tamara, posted 02-26-2004 12:22 PM Tamara has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 273 (89495)
03-01-2004 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Tamara
02-26-2004 10:49 AM


Re: Ad hominems
Tamara,
Thanks for your comment! Right to the point. I may be a crank, but that in no way diminishes my points about bayesian scientific method refuting certain aspects of evolutionary thinking, especially those that dishonor Jehovah. Moreover, Percy's repeated claim that I don't answer his and other's charges about evidence is simply not true. They repeatedly ignore the peer-reviewed evidence that I cite, pretending that it doesn't exist or isn't applicable. I remind them of my presentation of that evidence, and try to explain more fully how it is applicable in the H-D framework, and they then accuse me of repeating myself making empty claims.
No, Percy is a typical evolutionist. He will ultimately do all he can to censor baysian H-D science, with strong inference, because that scientific methodology demonstrates that evolution as a theory is as wrong as Newton's mechanics. Apparently and practically right, but basically wrong. Percy and others do not want that to be true. Or, if it is true, they do not want it well known.
I personally (being a crank?) see no difference between telling a person that they might be influenced by a demon and telling them that they might have a virus. For the one, say a prayer, for the other, take vitamin C. Nothing personal. It wasn't their idea to "catch" either the demon or the virus, although they could have washed their soul or hands a bit more often. Any evidence presented by the demon possessed, or the viral infected, is still quite valid and interesting. Opinions? Well, who cares about anyone's opinions? So most of those responding here have the opinion that I am crazy? What does that say about truth? I try to make my opinion about methods and truth of a little value by presenting my credentials, something none of my critics have dared to do. But, in the end, it's the evidence, stupid. Read the sites on H-D methodology, apply them to prayer studies and bible codes and theomatics, and soul weighing. Maybe there is controversy, but to say "no evidence" is simply dishonest.
Anyway, you are clearly on the side of truth here, and willing to stand up to some of the heat that those who hate the truth will put on you. Good on you.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Tamara, posted 02-26-2004 10:49 AM Tamara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Mammuthus, posted 03-01-2004 7:22 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 273 (89500)
03-01-2004 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Admin
02-26-2004 11:28 AM


Re: Ad hominems
Percy,
Well, here you go again!
Many have attempted to engage Stephen in rational discussion, but this hasn't proved possible. When reminded of this guideline, Stephen replied that it wasn't his responsibilty to persuade others of his views.
I reject persuasive discussion with people who, like yourself, are not rational, only rationalizers. As I have asserted, I will be happy to engage in a rational, refereed discussion with anyone, who will agree to rules and to submit to the decisions of an outside judge, who has agreed to enforce the agreed upon rules. All with the goal of persuading you that you are wrong. But, since you do not have any noticeable intellectual integrity, I have no hope of persuading you of anything. It's like asking me to dance with a suicide bomber. I am on the lookout for intellectual suicide bombers, which I identify by asking them to define terms (they won't), and by stating rules by which they change their their minds, or otherwise spot the truth. (The bombers state that truth is what they say it is.) You said that you did not know how to define demons, nor to distinquish confirmation from proof or conclusion. It is possible for a person to be so ignorant, but not in someone who claims to be anything but a naive student.
I set out certain rules that I play by, and cited websites that affirm those rules. By those rules, data confirming predictions in refereed journals that have been replicated (e.g. both prayer studies and bible code studies), however controversial, counts as evidence. If you say otherwise, you are playing by a different set of rules. If you want to claim that this evidence is not confirming of the hypothesis, according to the estabished (by independent web-sites) methodology, you may do so. It's your opinion against mine, let the reader's decide. I may lose the case in the minds of the "lurkers" but I did play by the rules I agreed to play by.
This comment,
He was only responsible for putting the word of the Lord before others, and if they chose to reject it that was their problem. He said he would do no more.
is especially contemptible. My responsibility is putting the word of H-D science before others, with integrity. Granted, I heard God say that, unless others had a chance or a choice, to learn to love the truth, to learn H-D science and other methods, they would perish. So, I present it publically, to give you and others a chance to live, for His and your sakes. The point is, as Gould so aptly put it (Rocks of Ages), the Thomas problem. There are those who want to live in faith, but need scientific evidence of God to believe. Well, it's handy, and I know how to demonstrate it. I work and pray to remove the evil stumbling blocks, that would convince the Thomas's of the world that there is no way that they can scientifically prove that God and Satan are about in the world we live in. Then I show them the H-D method, strong inference, bayesian methods, and they can put their hands in the wounds, do the prayer studies themeselves, look at the Bible Codes and theomatics data themselves, until they are ready to say, "My lord and my God."
My agenda is not hidden, but my responsibility is merely to show how H-D science works, and can be used to address spiritual truth questions. For you to put my efforts into some fundamentalist, evangelical context (which I repeatedly state is even worse than evolution) is both wrong and wrong spirited. Shame on you, as if you had any shame.
Of course, if I am right, you do not have, and can not have, any idea of what I am saying. The demons in your mind won't let you understand and you choose not to pray to get rid of them. But, some of the lurkers will watch you respond, and will pray, and will know the truth. And I will continue to be enriched, for telling the truth where it was not welcome.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Admin, posted 02-26-2004 11:28 AM Admin has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 268 of 273 (89534)
03-01-2004 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-01-2004 1:19 AM


Re: Ad hominems
quote:
I try to make my opinion about methods and truth of a little value by presenting my credentials, something none of my critics have dared to do.
BA Cornell Universtiy, major in Biology
Ph.D. University of Michigan, Human Genetics
NSF postdoc in molecular evolution
Did a postdoc on the genetic consequences of end-Pleistocene extinction
Currently working off an NSF grant on extinction of muskoxen in Eurasia and simultanously working off another grant studying the evolution of human endogenous retroviruses and their interaction with such pathogens as prions.
Oh yeah, most of my research has been or is in the process of being published in peer reviewed journals or in books. I have also done a few lectures and television interviews to convey the results from some of my projects to the general public (which for some reason the television interviews appear almost monthly here in Germany though they are out of date).
boy was I scared to admit that
By the way, most of us have explicitly listed our credentials in other threads...I was unaware that you had any interest. But your arguements are soley based on your own percieved authority...mine are based on science..if I am wrong, my Ph.D. will not make it right...you seem to fail to grasp this concept among other things.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 1:19 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 3:57 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 273 (89613)
03-01-2004 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Mammuthus
03-01-2004 7:22 AM


Re: Ad hominems
M.
You have been busy, and diligent! Good for you. I admire that.
The ultimate test of scientific integrity, though, for someone like yourself investing in a forum such as we have here, is for you to see if prayer modifies your "evolutionary" studies of retrovirus and prions. Prayer is on the scientific agenda, even to the point of being in the news. The entire evolution/creation debate hinges on whether the changes we see in common descent are divinely designed or "natural selection." Since the main way we might have to influence "divine design" is prayer, the responsible thing for you to do is to see whether a sincere effort to get prayer to influence the sorts of changes you are uniquely able to detect succeeds or fails.
But, of course, the creation hypothesis asserts that before you can even consider such a plan, you would have to get the demons off your back. They are authors of confusion (fusion with, bondage to your existing opinions). So, that's your first prayer study. Probably not publishable, but it might persuade you personally. I know that it did me.
The credential on myself, by the way, that makes me trust my opinion of me more than your opinion of me, aside from the astonishing inability you have to understand my most straightforward remarks, is the fact that I stated (in my book's preface, 1972) the method I was committed to, applied that method, and got really good results. Also, there is a sports official here in Lawrence, Charles Adams, who I ask to call intellectual "fouls" for and on me. I'll show him some of our posts, to see if he can see any basis for your remarks in my comments. My doctorate, or post-doc, or tenured post at K-State, or publications per se don't really justify much confidence in my remarks. That I taught a course on the philosophy of science throughout the seventies, and that the research I did then based on what I believed was right has so many citations today, convinces me that what I say on the subject is worthy of respect.
Cheers,
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Mammuthus, posted 03-01-2004 7:22 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Mammuthus, posted 03-02-2004 2:40 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 270 of 273 (89717)
03-02-2004 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-01-2004 3:57 PM


Re: Ad hominems
quote:
The entire evolution/creation debate hinges on whether the changes we see in common descent are divinely designed or "natural selection."
The first is an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis for which there is no evidence and no possible way to gather any. Natural selection is directly observable, even possible to artificially manipulate. It is also both testable and falsifiable and has withstood all attempts since its formulation. But I do agree that the debate hinges a great deal on this subject.
quote:
Since the main way we might have to influence "divine design" is prayer, the responsible thing for you to do is to see whether a sincere effort to get prayer to influence the sorts of changes you are uniquely able to detect succeeds or fails.
You don't know that the main way to influence design is prayer..it could be jumping up and down with a pickle in your butt. This a pure I say so story. I'll tell you what, I am constructing a plasmid that expresses the bovine prion protein expressed from a cytomegalovirus promoter. I will use standard techniques to make it and you pray that the construct appears in your fridge and we will see which method gets us there first.
More importantly, you falsely claim that I am in a position to "uniquely" detect the changes in my scientific studies. That is patently false. They are scientific because great pains are taken to insure that anyone from any religious background can repeat the experiments I have done from any study to confirm my results. I have no "unique" power of detection. Just the unique power of methodological naturalism to uncover the unknown.
quote:
So, that's your first prayer study. Probably not publishable, but it might persuade you personally. I know that it did me.
As I said in the Welcome Visitors forum, I had a religious upbringing and prayed as a kid. It was a waste of time. My life is no different now than it was when I prayed except that I don't waste time talking to the imaginary..I grew up..why don't you?
In any case, it behooves you to provide evidence for the effects of prayer by either reproducing previous results or by doing a larger controlled study. The burden is on you to support you assertions, not on those who disagree with you.
quote:
The credential on myself, by the way, that makes me trust my opinion of me more than your opinion of me, aside from the astonishing inability you have to understand my most straightforward remarks, is the fact that I stated (in my book's preface, 1972) the method I was committed to, applied that method, and got really good results.
The reason you trust your own opinion is because you wrote your own opinion in a book? Don't drive a car Stephen...you will end up in an endless circle.
quote:
Also, there is a sports official here in Lawrence, Charles Adams, who I ask to call intellectual "fouls" for and on me.
Ah yes, find someone who agrees with you to tell you he agrees with you..great correcting mechanism...maybe you can get your mommy to tell you that you are the greatest to while you are at it
In any case, I have my work reviewed constantly so I have plenty of input as to whether I am in error or not..and I do not need a "sports" official to tell me.
quote:
My doctorate, or post-doc, or tenured post at K-State, or publications per se don't really justify much confidence in my remarks.That I taught a course on the philosophy of science throughout the seventies, and that the research I did then based on what I believed was right has so many citations today, convinces me that what I say on the subject is worthy of respect.
Get over it Stephen, I and just about every scientist I know gets cited all the time. That every single study of evolution that I or Loudmouth have referenced for you in our discussions is completely unknown to you suggests your knowledge base is very shallow. That you are stuck in the 70's suggests at best you are badly out of date and at worst that you never understood evolution or science in general at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-01-2004 3:57 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024