Re: Damned Debunkers


<rogerh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:db9836ee-7a4b-4ef2-a8c1-226901fd828a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 25, 9:20 am, "Mike Williams" <miklw...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
l
When significant quakes correspond with syzygy, my critics may agree but
point out, "Look at all of those that don't." That is only half an
argument, not recognizing the big picture (like seeing only half of a
sheared sheep.)"

Mike Williams

Mike;

False analogy.

A better one is this; I toss 10 coins and 5 come up heads. You say
that's significant.

It's not. The tails matter too.

Roger

Yo, Roger,

I think that what JOB was trying to suggest was that, in your experiment,
the scientist was shown only five results which showed heads, and then
claimed that the remaining five tosses each had an equal chance of either
being heads or tails. And that the scientist claimed this despite JOB's
private and certain belief that most of those were also heads. Ipso facto,
then, the scientist was led astray by not seeing that which had not, in
fact, been shown to him (gender chosen to conform with anecdote).

Jim himself misapplied the anecdote in his concluding paragraph. In the
anecdote, the husband is indubitably correct, but can be faulted anyhow for
considering a possibility which has a near-zero chance of being correct. Jim
implies that the husband's real mistake is that he failed to see that the
other sides of the sheep had also been shorn. He further implies that the
high likelihood that sheep would be shorn on both sides is an analog to what
you and I both know is the low likelihood of a strong bias in a fair coin
toss. That is where he misapplies the analogy he provided.

Mike Williams


.