Re: Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong

On Dec 21, 9:26 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:16 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

< snip >

I've given you a citation to a quote from Rupert Morrish. Are you
saying that you disagree with Rupert Morrish? See quote below:

Rupert Morrish is not a scientist who has been involved in determining
if objects are artifacts or not! As it happens, yes, I disagree with
him. There is no "Parts A and B". We test hypotheses of how objects
are made. If we know how an object is made we can determine if it's an
artifact or not. If we can't figure out how it was made we don't know
if it's an artifact or not.

< snip >

I said that I *disagree* with him, Sean.

Yes, you did.

You need to learn to read for comprehension.

I just wanted to make your disagreement here very clear for Rupert -
He is/was under the impression that you actually recognize both
elements of what he thinks it takes to recognize an artifact.

As far as your declaration that he is not a scientist - how do you
know that? Beyond this, where is you reference that he is wrong?
Where is your reference that only one of Rupert's elements are really
needed to detect an artifact as being a true artifact?

Does anyone else, even in this forum, actually *agree* with your one-
part notion here?

< snip rest >

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com


Sean, it's not a "one part notion".
It's what's called "hypothesis testing".
It's an essential element in something called "science".

Science does *not* involve making sweeping generalisations about how
objects are made, categorising them as made by "deliberate" or "non-
deliberate" and asserting that such generalisations are statistical
conclusions.

Of course, you could prove me wrong by producing *any* reference to
*any* paper in *any* branch of science or mathematics which publishes
statistical conclusions which are *not* based on a numerical dataset.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics. It's a precise mathematical
tool, not an excuse for making generalisations and guesswork.

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: White Coat Day
    ... It's not an artifact. ... It's not a typo. ... is pretentious affectation which I prefer to avoid. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong
    ... saying that you disagree with Rupert Morrish? ... if it's an artifact or not. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Wireless for the Boom Operator
    ... companding artifact, but was never sure what exactly caused it. ... It tended to be gain related. ...
    (rec.arts.movies.production.sound)
  • Re: Seans "methodology"
    ... you would declare that it is an artifact! ... Its value is that the test has extremely high true positive rate as ... increase the false positive rate - obviously. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hauksbok treated as an artifact - intro for context presentation
    ... "artifact: any object made, modified, or used by people." ... matter for discussion on an archaeology ... relevence to this newsgroup than, say, ...
    (sci.archaeology)