Re: The Promise of Forth





John Doty wrote:

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:

...is a proper subset of the null hypothesis...

...OK, so you *finally* state that your hypothesis is in
fact not a "null" hypothesis at all...

Nice touch putting quotes around "null" as if it was some weird
term I invented instead of part of standard scientific methodology.

Let me know if you ever decide to address what I actually wrote
instead of making things up, putting the words in my mouth, and
then knocking down the straw man that you have created.

As long as you choose to take clear statements such as "a proper
subset of the null hypothesis" and to pretend that they mean
"not a null hypothesis at all", you have made it impossible to
have any sort of real discussion. I could spend a lot of time
correcting fibs like the one above, but I doubt that doing so
would in any way deter you.



John Doty wrote:

Bruce, if you believe Forth's sorry situation is a consequence of
irreversible and/or unknowable factors, why do you bother with this
conversation at all? It doesn't concern you. This conversation is for
optimists who have hope that something might still be salvaged of
Forth's beautiful ideas.

comp.lang.forth is an unmoderated USENET newsgroup. You don't get
to decide who "this conversation is for" or whether "it doesn't
concern" someone.

Besides, pointing out logical fallacies like not considering the
null hypothesis and attempting to educate those who appear to be
totally ignorant as to what the null hypothesis is are always
welcome in the sci.* and comp.* newsgroups.




I have concluded, based on your posts, that your repeated ignoring
of the null hypothesis, repeated replacing of the null hypothesis
with a straw man, and repeated claims that nobody has mentioned
the null hypothesis as an alternative to yours is quite deliberate
and is simply a cheap debating trick.

Your argument that there exists no other hypothesis and that
therefor yours must be correct is an invalid argument, and I
think that you are well aware that it is an invalid argument.

You refuse to consider the hypothesis that there is no cause
and effect relationship and that the correlation is either
simply the product of random chance or a product of a cause
or causes unknown (AKA the null hypothesis).

Or, as Bruce McFarling wrote to you recently:

"The *point* of a null hypothesis is that it refrains from
being one of the competing alternate hypothesis. The null
hypothesis is, 'there's nothing unusual here that needs
explaining'.

"The null hypothesis in this case is that there is nothing
surprising about a computer language being in the position
that Forth is in.

"Since you can't contradict the null in favor of your
working hypothesis except by replacing it with a flimsy
straw horse version, there's no particular reason as of
yet to take your working hypothesis seriously."


.