First I'd like to address the post from message 1 of this thread where it quotes you saying:
Stephen ben Yeshua as quoted in message 1 of this thread writes:
Fifth, there have been many, many replications of the statistically improbable codes, basically refuting the hypothesis that Witztum and others were lying. Scientifically refuting, I should add, since in true science, it is replication that carries the day, not ad hoc reasoning. Note that in real science, when there are many successful replications, effort to replicate that fail are normally considered to be bad methodology.
This is a good point, except that it contains a fatal error: Witztum has *not* been replicated. Other researchers have played with different codes than the ones Witztum played with, but no one has replicated Witztum's results.
For this reason, Witztum's results cannot be considered confirmed, and McKay's inability to reproduce Witztum's results must be considered a serious challenge.
Even worse for you and Witztum, it has been copiously established that you can find intriguing words and phrases by these methods in any very long sequence of letters, whether from actual books or randomly generated.
More bad news: even if it were established that the codes were statistically unique and could never occur in any text or random letter sequence outside the Bible, there is still no established connection between the presence of the codes and any other qualities of the Bible, such as that it's inerrant, that it's the Word of God, or that it is evidence for the existence of Jehovah or demons.
And even more bad news: Reasoning by finding a contradiction in the original assumption, let us assume that the existence of codes in the Bible are evidence that it is the actual Word of God. Since codes can be found in any long letter sequence, that means that any long letter sequence must also be evidence that it is the Word of God. But the letter sequence was generated by computer, and the computer is not God. Therefore, through contradiction of the original assumption, the existence of codes is not evidence that the Bible is the Word of God.
Moving on to your more recent post:
Stephen ben Yehsua writes:
Witztum specifically described the way he got the names without any wiggle room or shuffling. Do you believe that he lied about this? That the rabbi he asked to give him the names lied?
Whether anyone believes Witztum is lying, or whether he actually is lying, is irrelevant to the scientific process. Witztum has some research results that haven't yet been replicated. If no one is ever able to replicate them, it only means Witztum was wrong, not lying. That no one has been able to replicate Witztum's results may mean he neglected to mention a relevant detail or two, or that McKay is not following Witztum's directions properly. Whichever it is, as far as science is concerned, this is simply an issue of whether or not the results can be replicated and shown statistically significant. If so, the results become an established part of science. If not, they become forgotten.
Now, perhaps you would like me to go over in detail Witztum's findings, and those of other code researchers, who have done statistical tests. I can do so, and might find it interesting, if that's what you want.
I don't know about Gil, but as far as I'm concerned, sure, go ahead.
McKay is quite clear that he does not regard the Moby Dick codes as statistically improbable, and he is quite clear that the Rabbi's experiment of Witztum is statistically improbable.
You're stating the opposite of what McKay actually believes concerning Witztum's results.
[Fix spelling. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percy, 02-06-2004]
Your continued references to Bible Code Digest - a pro-Drosnin site - are sufficient.
Your kidding, right? Lord, I hope so.
Let's quote more of what Paul actually said in Message 6:
Stephen seems to make the distinction only when he wishes to reject crticisms - he seems quite happy to claim Drosnin's "Codes" as evidence at times yet at other times considers Drosnin's work to be a "strawman" - indicating that even he feels that they are worthless and easily dup;icated in other texts.
One place you brought up the Bible Code Digest is in Message 155 of the The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil thread, and you appear to be doing just what Paul describes. You're contradictory approach to Drosnin is exhibited elsewhere as well.
If there's anything you're consistent at, it's being inconsistent.
In it he summarizes Witztum's views, accurately representing Wirztum's viewpoint by saying things like this written from Witztum's perspective:
So, believing all that, we are forced to conclude that seomthing truly unusual is going on in the Book of Genesis.
Is that what led you to claim that McKay believe's Witztum found something statistically improbable? Anyway, nothing could be more ridiculous. I don't know what your problem is. First you say Mammuthus is beginning to see your point, now you say McKay agrees with Witztum. Stephen, we're only having these discussions because these people *don't* agree with you, and stating that they do only makes you look delusional.
I've got to go, if I find time later I'll respond to the rest of your post.
That's not what I was taught, or ever experienced. Gans cites the protocol for publishing a critique in Econometrics, I think, where one may not even submit a critique that has not been sent to those being criticized. Peer review without letting those criticized have their say is called good ole boy politics and censorship. Read Kuhn, read the history of science, to see where the real problems lie.
You're confusing letters with technical papers. Critical letters to the editor about technical papers published in previuos issues *are*, just as you described, frequently provided to the paper's authors so that a response may be printed with the letter. That isn't peer review.
Peer review is the process for reviewing technical papers prior to publication. The names of the authors are removed from copies of the paper, and the paper is distributed to anonymous reviewers. Based upon the feedback of reviewers, a journal's editors make a decision about whether to publish the paper or not. Frequently they will forward some of the anonymous feedback to the paper's authors and request changes and improvements. They may also reject the paper, perhaps still providing helpful feedback to assist the authors in future submissions.
Hopefully you now understand what peer review is, but the real question is why a supposed scientist like yourself has such a fundamental misunderstanding.
The actual problem is that you're completely confused about what *I'm* saying, not that I'm confused about what you're saying. That increasing evidence increases the confidence in a hypothesis is intuitively obvious and need not even be stated. Probably huge numbers of people agree with this, including me. If this is your basis for stating that Mammuthus is beginning to "get it" then you're far too modest: if that's your only point, then we practically all "get it".
The actual problem with your ideas is that you have yet to offer any evidence, and your thinking contains irrational leaps of logic. Witztum's results have *not* been replicated, and the only person attempting it, McKay, disagrees with Witztum's conclusions and makes a strong case that Witztum miscalulates the odds because his calculations fail to account for his manipulation of rabbi names.
Even if Witztum's results were confirmed, you still need to find an evidence-based connection between such results and textual validity. And since you already conceded elsewhere that not everthing in the Bible is accurate, you need a method for using Witztum's statistical approach to identify which parts of the Bible are true and which are false.
You also still have no evidence of demons. You have no evidence for any part of your description involving dark energy and sinister forces.
Until you can muster some evidence for your ideas, you're not going to convince anyone, and assuming confirmation on the basis of no evidence is certainly not science.
A brief summary of the result of our very extensive investigation is that all the alleged scientific evidence for the codes is bunk.
He calls the findings bunk, Stephen. To read any of McKay's writings about this, formal or otherwise, and conclude he's saying he got "even more significant results" is simply delusional. Please let us know when you plan to join the rest of us in the real world.
Once again you're inconsistent, though, since later you say McKay thinks the results "had been cooked." Of course, the cooking was done by Witztum, not Jehovah.
There is if you understand H-D science. Oh, you said "established" connection. Then, of course, you are right. Real science establishes nothing, just keeps moving on. But it does increase the plausibility that the Bible's claims are valid.
What you're actually doing is subjective Bayesianism, not H-D science, and there's a thread for this that you began yourself (The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)). Until you successfully make the case for your ideas in that thread, those ideas should be limited to that thread. To repeat the reason, this is because you were turning many threads into debates about subjective Bayesianism, and so to prevent the topic from becoming fragmented among many threads we limit it to a single thread where the issues can be more effectively addressed.
No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that codes, statistically improbable codes, have ever been found anywhere but the Torah. I think they will, that Satan will put codes in some books that he inspires, and that God will affirm other works of literary art as inspired by Him.
You're engaging in irrational leaps of logic again. You've established no link between statistically improbable codes on the one hand, and God and Biblical validity on the other. You need a deductive chain of reasoning connecting the two.
But, of course, most of my confidence comes from personally doing what the Bible says, to see if I will get what it promises. Beginning with hearing Jehovah speak, and finding that what He says is borne out by experience.
You're only doing what you think the Bible says, and you only think you hear Jehovah speak. You have no objective evidence that your Biblical interpretations are correct, and the voice of Jehoval you think you hear can never be confirmed by anyone else. Your comments have no standing as science.
"For the sake of argument, we are prepared to join them in rejecting their null hypothesis and conclude something interesting is going on. Where we differ is what that something is."
Hence, my point that they agree that the null hypothesis is rejected...
I shouldn't need to explain what it means to say, "For the sake of argument...", but since you seem to having trouble understanding English today, it means, "We disagree with them, but even if you accept their argument you find it doesn't support their conclusion."
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
He calls the findings bunk, Stephen.
Which proves he is not a scientist, and almost certainly wrong. Real scholars who love the truth never say things using words like bunk. Or apologize when they do.
You have almost too many weird ideas to be able to disabuse you of. Scientists are a lot like the people here, in a number of cases actually *are* the people here, and they not only use the word "bunk", but a lot of other words appropriate for your ideas. McKay calls the stuff "bunk" on a webpage.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
I thought we established that what you thought I was saying about subjectivity was a mis-understanding. I confine subjectivity to the formation of hypothesis, not to evalutating evidence testing predictions, as you thought I was saying. Hence, my Bayesianism is the simple thing itself.
Why don't you describe for us again how you use this method to confirm the existence of demons using the Bible and bizarre personal stories as evidence? By the way, you're not supposed to be entering your scientific methodology into other threads until you successfully make the case for it in the thread designated for that purpose.
Read Satinover, where he developes the argument that codes are signatures, to help humans know when a document is inspired by God or not.
You're welcome to present Satinover's ideas here.
You have no right to say that, without support, according to the rules of this forum.
I only pointed out your error in giving objective reality to subjective impressions. Why don't you just stick to the topic?
H-D Step 1. Note a problem. Here, the problem is evil in the world.
First, you haven't yet established that what you're doing is H-D. No one here thinks you're doing H-D, and as has been pointed out, Googles of H-D contradict you. Before you can make your case using your version of H-D, you must first make the case that it is valid. You have a thread where you're supposed to be doing that.
Second, evil is subjective. Until you provide an objective, measurable foundation for evil, none of the rest of your post has any validity.