|
Author
|
Topic: Discontinuing research about ID
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 3 of 393 (755086)
04-04-2015 10:15 AM
|
|
|
Don't give up, I can almost hear the choir
Keep at it ... you'll find a YEC 'peer reviewed" journal or some 'give us your money and we'll publish your paper" journal that prints nonsense. No one will care but the choir, but hey ... perhaps the choir can sooth your sadness. JB
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 63 of 393 (755198)
04-06-2015 10:34 AM
|
|
|
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 66 of 393 (755201)
04-06-2015 11:54 AM
|
|
|
The majority of popular songs are so formulaic that an accomplished musician can, with a high degree of accuracy, predict the next chord in the musical pattern without knowing the song. This song structure is taught in music schools. Film schools and screenplay instructors teach tried and true methods of plot and set structures that draw people in. Habits are repeatedly reinforced and passed on through the ranks. Yes, there is ID in television shows. Stunning breakthrough. JB
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by vimesey, posted 04-06-2015 12:01 PM | | ThinAirDesigns has not replied |
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 98 of 393 (755328)
04-07-2015 2:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 2:08 PM
|
|
Oh, so you're saying there IS a human driven explanation for patterns in the first few minutes. Ok, looks settled to me. JB
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 2:08 PM | | Dubreuil has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 99 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 2:27 PM | | ThinAirDesigns has replied |
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 104 of 393 (755336)
04-07-2015 2:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 2:27 PM
|
|
Dubreuil writes: No. Teasers appear sometimes, not always. The pattern appears in series with and without teasers. Now you're just being coy (or Dunning-Kruger) By your own link, a "teaser" is an opening segment presented without title credits. So let's look at the options for a series without teasers: A: Same plot content as a teaser, but simply including the credits overlays B: Opening credits without plot content (blank background or other). So in the case of "A", OF COURSE the same human introduced patterns are going to be there as the shows with teasers because the action is the same. The only difference is the overlay. In the case of "B", I'm pretty darn sure you're not claiming that relevant patterns appear in a blank background or standard opening background. Either way, you've done absolutely nothing to filter out human pattern introduction from your pattern. JB
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 2:27 PM | | Dubreuil has not replied |
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 109 of 393 (755341)
04-07-2015 3:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 3:15 PM
|
|
Dubreuil writes: "Chance itself has not created the pattern and any other natural origin can not have created the pattern because of the involvement of chance." But as pointed out previously, that is simply false and illogical. The involvement of chance does not rule out the involvement of some other origin. A penny may fall heads up through chance or through any other endless combinations of inputs not related to chance. Simply repeating yourself or linking to a previous message and quoting something illogical and false does not address the silliness of the claim. You have failed miserably to eliminate the obvious possibility that the patterns are created through the common needs of the media. You are merely asserting without evidence that it can't be. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given. Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 3:15 PM | | Dubreuil has not replied |
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 116 of 393 (755356)
04-07-2015 4:08 PM
|
|
|
Dubreuil, what is your experience in the industry of TV? Do you have any? Have you been trained in writing or producing scripts? Do you have some related expertise to help support the many assertions you are making about the way TV shows are constructed? JB
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 121 of 393 (755379)
04-07-2015 7:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 6:57 PM
|
|
TAD writes: Dubreuil, what is your experience in the industry of TV? Do you have any? Have you been trained in writing or producing scripts? Do you have some related expertise to help support the many assertions you are making about the way TV shows are constructed? That's what I thought. Some of us have extensive industry experience -- enough to know you're barking in the wind here. JB
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 6:57 PM | | Dubreuil has not replied |
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 126 of 393 (755428)
04-08-2015 12:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by Dubreuil
04-08-2015 12:01 PM
|
|
Dubreuil writes: If you claim that there were mistakes about the quantisations, then you should name them. If anyone else, who has enough industry experience, claims that there were mistakes about the quantisations, then he or she should name them. If anyone claims that there are mistakes about the mathematics, then it should be named. That's how discussions work. Not: "You are dumb, I'm omniscient". Your mistakes have been named multiple times and you simply ignore them. For instance, you claim that the involvement of chance precludes other natural explanations. You've been called on the illogical nature of this claim multiple times. Humans creations include patterns, conscious and subconscious. TV shows are no different. It's logical to conclude that the constraints of TV shows would force even more patterns into the mix. There's a reason that no one will publish your "research" -- it's flawed from the start. JB
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 12:01 PM | | Dubreuil has not replied |
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 133 of 393 (755473)
04-08-2015 4:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by Dubreuil
04-08-2015 2:14 PM
|
|
Dubeuil writes: "Chance itself has not created the pattern and any other natural origin can not have created the pattern because of the involvement of chance." All of your squirming doesn't make the above any more logical. Natural forces don't just take a hiatus when chance is also involved. Chance and natural forces are simply two inputs into a given outcome. JB
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 2:14 PM | | Dubreuil has not replied |
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 134 of 393 (755475)
04-08-2015 5:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by Dubreuil
04-08-2015 2:14 PM
|
|
Dubreuil writes: I don't want to spent the rest of my life with explaining mathematics to laymen. Since your basic premise is flawed, who gives a RA about the math. Math requires good inputs and without them all is lost. You admittedly have no experience in the TV broadcast business and thus have no clue how patterns arise in that industry. JB
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 2:14 PM | | Dubreuil has not replied |
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
|
|
Message 137 of 393 (755575)
04-09-2015 2:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by Dubreuil
04-09-2015 1:48 PM
|
|
Re: Interim Summary
Dubreuil writes: It doesn't matter whether I know how patterns arise or not, if I know that they have arose. Nonsense -- because you DO claim to know how they arose. You have been saying it's proof of a triune god since you arrived here. What you have said above simply blows your entire paper out of the water. If you're here to merely demonstrate that patterns exist, then big woopy doo, but contrary to your above statement it DOES matter how they arose if you're actually attempting to prove the point of your paper. Turns out, there's a much simply explanation for your patterns, but you might need knowledge of the industry to recognize it. You have made this mistake over and over in your posts where you dismiss the possibility of patterns introduced through industry norms and human involvement - such as your nonsense regarding teasers.
You didn't answered the four questions I asked you. It is claimed that the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. Chance and natural forces are two inputs into a given outcome, but the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you disagree, then you should be able to answer on of this questions with No: 1. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution? 2. Do you agree that a coincidental contribution will change the row of appearances? 3. Do you agree that a change in the row of appearances will cause the pattern to not fit sometimes? 4. Do you agree that if the pattern doesn't fit that often, then the pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2? If you can't do that, then the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. If you disagree, then refer to the arguments that are discussed, don't just ignore them as the other arguments before: No. I'll decide how much time I spend on your nonsense, and as long as you are spewing fundamental nonsense, it won't be much. JB
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by Dubreuil, posted 04-09-2015 1:48 PM | | Dubreuil has not replied |
|
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2673 days) Posts: 564 Joined: 02-12-2015
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 160 of 393 (756059)
04-15-2015 6:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 158 by marc9000
04-14-2015 10:04 PM
|
|
Re: Moderator On Duty
marc9000 writes: I sense a lot of atheists coming unglued over something they can't handle. Yeah, because a god who would take the time off from killing innocent babies in africa to coyly reveal himself in ST:TNG would be such a threatening concept to an atheist. JB Edited by Adminnemooseus, : NOTE - 24 hour suspension for this message. - Adminnemooseus
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 158 by marc9000, posted 04-14-2015 10:04 PM | | marc9000 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2