Re: Minimum Structural Complexity and Gap Distance - a clear relationship

On 29 Jun, 21:05, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jun 28, 12:47 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

< snip >

Here's what I wrote:

"Any time you find a very high degree of reflexive symmetry in
exhibited in the material of granite, say, 10,000 irregularities on
one side of the block that vary by over 100% as measured from the
center of the block and yet match, within 0.00001%, *all* the opposing
irregularities on the other side of block, the artifactual nature of
the block would be clear - even if found on an alien planet without
any knowledge of any aliens occupying the planet. . . .

You claim to have made such a study.
Where is your dataset of measurements of granite objects?

The dataset doesn't have to be written down before I can formulate a
falsifiable hypothesis.

No it doesn't. But it does have to be written down before you can
claim to have carried through the stage of your methodology and formed
conclusion.

My own non-written experience with the
material of granite is good enough.

How can you perform a statistical analysis - which you have claimed to
have done - on "non-written experience"!

If you don't believe my hypothesis
is actually built upon an adequate data set, then falsify it.

You have not formulated an hypothesis! You have claimed results from a
methodology it is clear that you haven't carried through.

Show
that non-deliberate processes can indeed produce symmetry in the
material of granite even close to the specifications I've listed
above.

You claim to have a statistical method of determining if a granite
object is the product of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces.

You claim to have applied your method to granite.

By your own confession, you haven't even written anything down, let
alone produced a numerical dataset which can be analysed
statistically!



Regarding granite, a surface irregularity is where not every
surface point is the same distance from the center of the stone. For
example, a perfectly round polished stone would have no surface
irregularities at all since every point on the surface would be the
same distance from the center of the stone. Or, another way to put it
is that every surface point would be the
same distance from the exactly opposing
surface point if there were no surface irregularities.

So how do you determine this *MATHEMATICALLY*. You claim that you have
applied your statistical method, yet you cannot produce any evidence
whatsoever that you have made a single measurement.

Even if I did list of a bunch of measurements, that wouldn't satisfy
you. You'd just say that I made up the measurements.

As you have already admitted that you have made no measurements, it's
irrelevant what I'd say, isn't it?


Basically then,
all that is left is for you to prove me wrong.

You've proved yourself wrong. You admitted that you had made no
measurements.

Even if all I have is
nothing more than a hunch, can you show that it is wrong?

"Having a hunch" is not the same as carrying through a statistical
method of determining whether or not a granite object is the product
of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces. You need data, and a
method of analysing that data for that.

I highly
doubt it given my past experience with the material of granite.

Fine. Then carry through the methodology you claim to have to granite
objects.

All
you need is one example, just one, of non-deliberate processes
producing this degree of symmetry. Good luck ; )

Why is the onus on me to falsify your assertions?

You claim to have a statistical method which can determine if an
granite object is the product of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate"
forces.

Do carry out a statistical analysis you need a NUMERICAL data set.

You admit that you have not even written anything down, let alone
measured anything!

So you CANNOT have applied your statistical method to anything.

You have stated that you HAVE applied your method.

So you were lying when you made that statement.



Now, for comparison, consider a highly symmetrical polished
granite cube. Such a cube has surface irregularities that are not the
same distance from the center of the cube nor are they the same
distance from exactly opposing surface points. Yet, each
"irregularity", in this case, exactly matches the irregularity on the
exact opposite side to within a very narrow threshold.
Are you starting to get the picture?

Yes, that you are claiming to have a statistical method of determining
such things, that you have not made any measurements or any form of
statistical analysis, yet you claim to have done so.

If you don't believe my claims are an accurate reflection of reality,
prove me wrong.

Sean, you lied. You claimed to have applied your statistical method,
yet you admit that you have not done so. I don't need to prove you
wrong. You have proved yourself wrong.

Should be easy to do if I really have no valid
evidence to back me up - if I just came up with this notion of the top
of my head without any valid reasons whatsoever. What are the odds
that a wild guess of mine would happen to be right? Good luck
falsifying my "wild hunch" in this case though . . .

I don't need to falsify anything, Sean.
You lied.
You have implicitly admitted that you lied.
Why not try to be honest for once, and apologize for lying.


The more irregular the
irregularities, while maintaining a very high degree of reflective
symmetry (or other forms of symmetry), the more confident one can be
that deliberate artifact was in play."

So how do you measure such irregularities?

Using the metric system of measure (cm or mm or whatever, depending
upon the scale of the stone in question).


How do you use "the metric system" to measure irregularities? What is
the metric for "irregularity"? What parameters of "irregularity" did
you measure?

You can't simple slap a scale rule onto a block of granite and measure
"irregularity".


You claim to have done so.

Roughly speaking, but good enough for such a prediction.

And presumably, as you have written nothing down, you remembered all
these numbers?


Which parameters did you measure?

I just told you.

You have not identified a single parameter. "The metric system" is not
a parameter.
"Length" is a parameter we measure in millimeters or meters
"Angle" is a parameter we measure in degrees or radians.
"Height" is a parameter we measure in millimeters or meters
"Temperature" is a parameter we measure in Kelvins, or degrees
Celcius.

In what units do we measure "irregularity"?

Again, the distance from the middle of the stone to
the surface of the stone as compared to the distance of the stone to
the exact opposite surface.

And you have memoriized all these numbers? After all, you said that
you had not written anything down.


How big is your dataset?

Perhaps as big as Howard Hershey's - i.e., big enough to make an
educated guess that seems reasonable too most.

Howard Hershey has not claimed to have developed a statistical method
of determining if a granite object is the product of "deliberate" or
"non-deliberate" forces.

You have.

Howard Hershey has not claimed to have applied his method to granite
and formed conclusions.

You have.

How have you established that your dataset is large enough to provide
the level of confidence you need to support your conclusions? This is
a matter of mathematics, not comparing yourself to other people.


How have you established that your dataset is big enough to give the
statistical confidence you need?

Out of the many thousands of granite stones of I've come across in
natural settings not even one of them has come remotely close to
meeting the degree of symmetry I've just defined above - not one.

I didn't ask you about your subjective impressions of granite
objects.

You claim to have a STATISTICAL method.
There are statistical tools which allow you to determine if your
dataset is big enough to give the confidence you need.
To do statistics you need numbers, not subjective impressions.

The
only granite forms that have met or at least come close to meeting
this degree of symmetry, that I've ever personally seen or handled,
have been deliberately designed. I'd say that these observations are
quite statistically significant.

"I'd say that these observations are quite statistically significant"
is not wonderful example of scientific and mathematical rigour, is it?

You can't do statistics on observations. You can't do statistics on
subjective impressions.
To do statistics you need numbers.
Unless you have a dataset of numbers you cannot form any statistical
conclusions.



What don't you understand about the concept or the listed
parameters? - a listed hypothesized threshold limitation that is
clearly open to potential falsification.

The "concept" is at best a vague description of a methodology
completely lacking any of the specific details you need to carry it
through.

Oh please. You don't know how to measure a rock's surface
irregularities and compare them to the irregularities on the other
side of the rock? Give me a break!

No, I don't.
I don't know how one could measure large numbers of granite objects in
a way which allows the data to be normalised - i.e. the data for all
the objects reduced to the same number of parameters - and which
includes information on parameters such as "surface irregularity".

You don't either.


You haven't listed any parameters. You have listed properties which a
measurement and analysis of parameters might show.

The definition of "parameter" is "any of a set of physical
*properties* whose values determine the characteristics of something."
- Webster's Dictionary


If you want to do statistics, those parameters have to be expressed
numerically.

Or do you have a way of doing statistics without using numbers?

A list of properties is a list of parameters Richard.

Not if you want to do a statistical analysis it ain't, Sean.

Or do you have a way of doing statistics without using numbers?


I've just listed off for you a set of physical properties/parameters
that might be seen in granite defining the limits of a certain degree
of reflective symmetry.

In what units do you measure "reflective symmetry"?

If the measurements of surface irregularities
of one side of a rock match the irregularities on the other side of
the rock, to the degree I listed above, I hypothesize that deliberate
artifact was involved.

Fine.
How are you measuring "surface irregularity"?
What units are you using?


A "threshold limitation" is not a number plucked out of the air, but a
number reached by a statistical analysis of the dataset.

A threshold limitation could actually be plucked out of the air at
random.

Well, tell the statisticians of the world!

Not only can you do statistics without using numbers (a trick beyond
the powers of any statistician I have ever come accross, but that's
only a few University Professors of Statistics, and what do *they*
know about the subject?), you can now establish statistically valid
threshold levels simply by pulling them out of the air.

Most likely if this was the method chosen, the chosen
threshold would be wrong the vast majority of the time - wouldn't you
say?

As no statistician would dream of using such a method to determine a
threshold limit, who knows?

That is why most don't use this method. It just isn't very
reliable. So, if you really think that this is the method I've
actually used to come up with my threshold limitations, odds are that
I'm way way off base and can easily be proved wrong. So, why not just
prove me wrong instead of trying to twist definitions of words so that
you can accuse me of being a liar instead of being wrong?

Sean, you've already conceded that you are a liar - unless you have a
magic method of performing statistical calculations without using
numbers, or are able to do so in your head by measuring parameters you
can't define on granite objects you have just looked at.


It seems as though you can't prove me wrong, so you are trying to
discredit me some other way.

Sean, you have discredited yourself.
You lied.
Admit it.
You claim to have carried out a statistical analysis of granite forms,
yet you have admitted that you have not even written anything down!

It seems like a rather desperate move to
me; but I guess it really is all you have . . .

All you have to do is
provide a single example of such a degree of symmetry being produced
in the material of granite by any non-deliberate force of nature and
you falsify my position. And, by implication, you also put SETI
science on very shaky ground as well.

No, Sean. What you have to do it is to carry out the methodology you
claim to have carried out and demonstrate that it *can* make the
finding you claim for it.

That's not what science requires.

No. Basic honesty requires that if you say that you have carried
through a methodology, you should have carried through that
methodology.

Science only requires
falsifiability of the prediction. I've made a falsifiable
prediction. Can you falsify it or not? If not, my prediction gains
predictive value as time goes on. That's how science works.

< snip some repetitive stuff >

So how many objects have *YOU*, Sean Pitman, measured?

Thousands, but what difference does that make?

I don't believe you, Sean. I think you are lying again. The fact that
you cannot even tell us what parameters you have measured, or what
units you used suggests that you have done nothing of the sort. The
fact that you admit that you have not written anything down confirms
it. Or have you simply memorised a large dataset of measurements?


And yes, it makes all the difference. The validity of your conclusions
depends on the size of your dataset.


The really important
thing is if you can or cannot falsify my prediction.

< snip >

How have your recorded three-dimensional forms?

Via visual estimation mostly with a few direct measurements here and
there - plenty accurate enough to know that nothing that is produced
by non-deliberate natural processes comes remotely close to the degree
of symmetry I've outlined above.

For a statistical analysis you need numbers. How can you generate
numbers from a "visual estimation"?

Yes, you can. As a pathologist I measure many specimens directly every
day - down to the millimeter usually. I'm pretty good at estimating
size variabilities to within a sub-cm random of error. The numbers
I've come up with via visual estimates of granite rocks I've seen have
a range of error that is certainly not as accurate as direct
measurements, but it isn't that far off base either. At least it is
good enough that I'd be willing to back up my predictions with a
sizable monetary bet - if you're interested.

So why can't you tell us what parameters you measured on these
"thousands" of granite objects?


They are quite falsifiable.

Parameters are not falsifiable. They are the framework which you use
to record your data.

A "parameter" is any of a set of physical properties whose values
determine the characteristics or behavior of something.

In a statistical analysis, which you claim to have done, they are what
you measure.

That's exactly what I originally said. The "measurements" of the
surface irregularities on the granite rock must have the property of
being reflectively symmetrical to a certain specific degree. That is
the definition of "parameter". Look it up.

Do do a statistical analysis, your parameters have to be *NUMBERS*.
What number do you apply to a "certain specific degree" of "reflective
symmetry"?

I've just
listed for you a set of physical properties for a chunk of granite
that define a fairly high degree of symmetry. Obviously, what is
falsifiable here is my hypothesis that this particular set of
parameters, as listed above, carries with it an extremely high degree
of predictive value when it comes to detecting deliberate manipulation
of the material of granite.

This is complete and utter nonsense. In a statistical analysis (which
you claim to have carried out) the parameters are what you measure.

A parameter may also represent a limit or boundary to the
measurements. It seems you need to look up the term in the
dictionary.

Can you explain to us how one can carry out a *STATISTICAL* analysis
without using numbers? IT doesn't matter what the dictionary
definition of "parameter" is. I know what a parameter is. I also know
that if you want to do statistics, your parameters *have* to be
described as numbers.


They are dimensions,. angles and so on.

They may also be set limitations to dimensions, angles, and so
on . . .

You can't do statistics on limitations.
You can only do statistics on numbers.


You are asserting that unless
someone can falsify "length" (and not the length of any specific
object, but the concept of "length" itself) your "hypothesis" is
supported.

LOL - Oh Beeee-have! You've gotta be kidding me?!

What I'm clearly hypothesizing is that a specific measured degree of
symmetry (obviously not the measurement itself) cannot be produced by
any non-deliberate natural process.

You have asserted that you have a statistical method of determining
this.
That requires a set of numbers.

This notion of mine, if you'd
rather call it a notion, is clearly falsifiable. If someone can
falsify this hypothesis, by demonstrating the production of the stated
degree of symmetry (the stated symmetrical parameter/limit) by a non-
deliberate force of nature, I'd be proved wrong.

You have asserted that you have a statistical method of determining
this.
You have asserted that you have carried through your statistical
method.
It is clear that you haven't.
You were lying when you said that you had.


I know that it terribly confusing for someone looking for any minutia
of an excuse to personally defame their opponent, but I doubt it is
that difficult for most people - even Howard Hershey! Shocking! ; )


I hardly need to look for minutiae when you condemn yourself with your
own admissions.
You said that you have carried through a statistical method which can
determine if a granite object is the product of "deliberate" or "non-
deliberate" forces.
You cannot tell us what parameters you measured
You cannot tell us anything about the statistical methods you would
need.
You have admitted that you have written nothing down.
It is patently clear that you have lied.

It seems that you have lied again when you claimed to have measure
"thousands" of granite objects - evidently without writing anything
down, which is a feat of memory way beyond that of anyone I have ever
heard of.

In short, you have the demeanour of a child caught with his hand in
the cookie jar, chocolate smeared over his face, who protests that it
wasn't him that stole the cookies.

RF


< snip rest >

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Minimum Structural Complexity and Gap Distance - a clear relationship
    ... exhibited in the material of granite, say, 10,000 irregularities on ... Where is your dataset of measurements of granite objects? ... The "concept" is at best a vague description of a methodology ... but that you lack the basic knowledge of statistics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Minimum Structural Complexity and Gap Distance - a clear relationship
    ... exhibited in the material of granite, say, 10,000 irregularities on ... Where is your dataset of measurements of granite objects? ... Even if I did list of a bunch of measurements, ... producing this degree of symmetry. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Request for feedback on statistical method
    ... As I mentioned, I'll report back ... >> artifactual but am not a statistics expert. ... Thus, more recent measurements are ... > physical constant, after 6000 years of change, to suddenly stabilize ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: How many data points for statistical significant results?
    ... the minimum, maximum, mean of the measurements. ... The results have to be "statistically significant", ... My guess is to to provide the 5th percentile, ... statistics, so I think they would be looking for some guidance from me ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Roberts versus Lazio on "Overaveraging"
    ... but it is not valid science or statistics. ... > measurements below the resolution of the instrument used. ... the systematic errors involved, by averaging multiple measurements. ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading