Finally you provide a pointer. But Theodoric has already done that for you. He also provided a link to the paper, the published rebuttal, and a lot of other critical material.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
quote: 34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
I'm not a mathematician ... That's why I rely on authorities in those fields, and that's why I don't make up stories myself, but show what big experts in those fields say.
so, i'm not a mathematician either. but my father is. his erdos number is 2 (i've personally met paul erdos, when i was very young, before he died), and i have pretty close ties to many 2's and 3's and i think a few 1's, big shots in the mathematical community.
i've also had pleasure of hearing brendan mckay, the anti-code source linked repeatedly in this thread, speak publicly on the topic at an international mathematics conference attended by many prominent mainstream mathematicians. suffice to say, he represents an authority in the field. michael drosnin does not.
though eliyahu rips does seem to be a Ph.D. mathematician, i don't think that is the case for his co-authors (witzum and rotenberg), and his work was largely discredited by, well, brendan mckay. and there hasn't been much other work on the subject, because that was that. this is not the sort of topic that mathematicians usually concern themselves with, even the applied/crypto sorts of mathematicians. at the conference i saw dr. mckay give his lecture, it was scheduled as a "fun aside", and a public lecture (the bible codes were a hot topic then), and trust me when i say, the audience found it all very funny. the smackdown was pretty thorough.
i suggest you read his site, and then his papers, if you want more on the topic. because you're looking to the wrong authorities.
No, because more peer reviewed articles have been released on the subject, ripping the supposed "refutation" to shreds, and jumping up and down on the pieces, while at the same time thoroughly establishing the Bible codes.
As you're mathematically illiterate, I'm not going to take your word for whose papers are better than whose.
For the finer details see message 71.
It has fine details? Where? Do I have to read every seventh letter?
In 2006, at the 18th International Pattern Recognition Conference, which took place in Hong Kong, there were six papers published in support of the Torah codes. All of these papers were subject to peer review, which means that fellow scientists reviewed the papers and could note any flaw in the research or logic that they might find. Were they to find an uncorrectable flaw, the paper would be rejected.
If anything there may have been papers on the subject included in oral presentations. But from what I understand this is not at all anything like having it having it being part of the conference. Maybe someone familiar with scientific conferences can illuminate us on what an oral presentation is at a conference. I am not even sure these we actually presented it just seems from my research that there may have been oral presentations of torah codes at some of these conferences.
What he said was "In 2006, at the 18th International Pattern Recognition Conference, which took place in Hong Kong, there were six papers published in support of the Torah codes." I don't see what it can mean for a paper to be published (rather than read) at a conference, unless it means that the paper appeared in the Proceedings of the conference, which they didn't.
So what does Gans mean? Does he mean, as you suggest, that he put on his own unofficial unscheduled sideshow at the time and place where the conference was being held? But then the papers were still not published at the conference.
All this makes nonsense --- double nonsense --- of his claim that:
According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.
Apart from the fact that science doesn't work like that (which is why no-one has ever been awarded a Nobel Prize In Triviality And Obscurity), if the papers aren't there in the scientific literature for anyone to pick holes in, then the alleged fact that no-one has done so is neither here nor there.
Something like that is not found in any other religious text, or any non-religious text, except maybe the BS text of Adequate, but that is made especailly for that purpose, and does not serve any other purpose.
But here of course you're not actually telling the truth. Plainly the acrostics I've made do indeed have another easily identifiable use: a towering, looming, blatantly obvious purpose, since as well as their hidden "bullshit" message these posts also serve the purpose of debunking the frequent mistaken reasonings to be found widely in your posts. That as well as doing this they also give us acrostics more skilled than those you hail as showing God's ability is the icing on the cake.
I'm not a mathematician, just like I'm not a paleontologist, and not a biologist, and not a physicist, and a lot more not.
That's why I rely on authorities in those fields, and that's why I don't make up stories myself, but show what big experts in those fields say.
N.B: For "show" read "ignore, misrepresent, cherry-pick, or just plain lie about, as expedience dictates". For "big experts in those fields" read "anyone, no matter how marginal, stupid, wrong or obsolete who said something that Eliyahu thinks he can make use of, since for the purposes of his rhetoric this automatically elevates them to the heights of their profession". For examples of this usage, see Eliyahu's other threads, passim.
That's why I rely on authorities in those fields, and that's why I don't make up stories myself, but show what big experts in those fields say.
Well the authorities say that WRR's paper is bullocks and my point is that you have no ability to critique that. So talking with you is pointless.
Bs'd
Wrong. Only SOME authorities say it is bullocks. Others say it is authenic.
There was nothing "thoroughly debunked". All there was was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result..
As has been discussed several times, a refutation was published in 1999 in the same journal in which the original article appeared.
Right, and they refused a refutation of the refutation, which is now presented at the 18th International Congres for Pattern Recognition in 2006, together with 5 other peer reviewed papers on the Bible codes.
And that "refutation" in Statistical Science did not give a refutation, but it only was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result. That the result was meaningfull was something they couldn't deny.
And calling the debunking 'ridiculous' is not an answer. It is your mere assertion, and we know you are not capable of carrying on a discussion about it.
The answer has been given in a peer reviewed refutation.
Further, your characterization of the nature of the rebuttal is completely inaccurate. The flaws in WRR's work are well documented.
You have no idea what you are talking about. If there were any flaws in it, it would never have been published in a peer reviewed journal to begin with. Certainly not after six years of studying it and calling in the worlds biggest experts, because of the obvious very controversial content. The paper is flawless.
In essence, what we have here is a disagreement among experts with you unable to take any meaningful part in a discussion about who is right.
Let me tell you again how science works:
In 2006, at the 18th International Pattern Recognition Conference, which took place in Hong Kong, there were six papers published in support of the Torah codes. All of these papers were subject to peer review, which means that fellow scientists reviewed the papers and could note any flaw in the research or logic that they might find. Were they to find an uncorrectable flaw, the paper would be rejected.
One of the papers that I co-authored proved that the original paper describing the “Great Rabbis Experiment” was not a hoax, and that the experiment with the rabbis and the cities of their birth and death was valid. That paper referenced the critic's 1999 Statistical Science paper, so that the reviewers could easily refer to it. According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.
So, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.
. . .
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
"The only reality is mind and observations." Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics
Being wrong twice is no substitute for being right once.
In 2006, at the 18th International Pattern Recognition Conference, which took place in Hong Kong, there were six papers published in support of the Torah codes. All of these papers were subject to peer review, which means that fellow scientists reviewed the papers and could note any flaw in the research or logic that they might find. Were they to find an uncorrectable flaw, the paper would be rejected.
One of the papers that I co-authored proved that the original paper describing the “Great Rabbis Experiment” was not a hoax, and that the experiment with the rabbis and the cities of their birth and death was valid. That paper referenced the critic's 1999 Statistical Science paper, so that the reviewers could easily refer to it.
According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.
See message #80.
And that "refutation" in Statistical Science did not give a refutation, but it only was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result. That the result was meaningfull was something they couldn't deny.
But this is not true, as one can see, and I have just seen, by reading the paper.
If there were any flaws in it, it would never have been published in a peer reviewed journal to begin with.
And yet somehow these alleged six papers don't appear in the program of the conference or in the published proceedings of the conference. Nor does Gans himself. So this looks like a great big lie with a topping of bullshit sauce.
Bs'd
Let me guess: Because you, in all your wisdom, cannot find it, therefore it doesn't exist, and it is all bs??
ICPR 2006: Hong Kong, China
18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2006), 20-24 August 2006, Hong Kong, China. IEEE Computer Society 2006 ISBN 0-7695-2521-0
Being wrong twice is no substitute for being right once.
Bs'd
Whether you like it or not, that's how science works.
In 2006, at the 18th International Pattern Recognition Conference, which took place in Hong Kong, there were six papers published in support of the Torah codes. All of these papers were subject to peer review, which means that fellow scientists reviewed the papers and could note any flaw in the research or logic that they might find. Were they to find an uncorrectable flaw, the paper would be rejected.
One of the papers that I co-authored proved that the original paper describing the “Great Rabbis Experiment” was not a hoax, and that the experiment with the rabbis and the cities of their birth and death was valid. That paper referenced the critic's 1999 Statistical Science paper, so that the reviewers could easily refer to it.
According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.
See message #80.
See message 87
And that "refutation" in Statistical Science did not give a refutation, but it only was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result. That the result was meaningfull was something they couldn't deny.
But this is not true, as one can see, and I have just seen, by reading the paper.
That is true, as one can see, by just reading the the paper.
If there were any flaws in it, it would never have been published in a peer reviewed journal to begin with.
Have you gone completely mad?
Have you gone completely mad that you think flawed papers are published in peer reviewed scientific journals??
"The only reality is mind and observations." Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics
quote:Have you gone completely mad that you think flawed papers are published in peer reviewed scientific journals??
This happens quite often. You also previously referenced conference abstracts as if these were 'peer reviewed literature', demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
