Re: Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong

On Dec 22, 5:11 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 22, 1:32 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.





0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:38 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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

You are only testing one element of a two element hypothesis Richard.
That isn't enough to detect an artifact as being a true artifact.

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.

Science most certainly can be used to make very useful sweeping
generalizations.  That is what induction is all about.  That is how
those like Newton and Einstein could claim, based on relatively little
data, that their theories applied everywhere in the entire universe.

More bull***, Sean. Newton and Einstein formed very specific
conclusions about the behaviour of the universe based on rigorous and
precise mathematical modeling.
So, Mr. Intelligent Sean could make conclusions without any data and
mathematical modeling.
No wonder he just use his mouth to even postulate something......

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.

Useful scientific conclusions based on valid statistical analysis need
not be published or even written down.

More bull***, Sean.
You can't do statistics without a numerical dataset.
The BS is not getting less but more.
We all know statistical analysis require a full set of data, that is
what this math analysis is all about. But, perhaps our Mr. Sean can
memorize the dataset no body in this universe can.
Can he demonstrate to us here, in the open?

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

Generalizations - yes; completely blind guesswork - no.  Statistics
can be used to make generalizations and useful statitical analysis can
be done without ever writing anything down.

In other words you can't support your assertion.
Why on earth should  anyone take your unsupported assertions as
anything other that bull***?
May be he get Ray to write down for him, and therefore he need not
write.....
Is this what he mean? Otherwise, its either a lie, or he does not know
anything about statistical analysis.


 Again, this is the basis
for your ability to recognize a highly symmetrical polished granite
cube as an "anomaly" even if you found it on an alien planet.  You
wouldn't be able to do this without at least some experience based in
at least some degree of written or non-written statistical analysis.

RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

Sean, if you want to do statistics, you need numbers.
If you claim to do science, you need to write things down.
All you are doing is making unfounded assertions.

That isn't science.
Of course we can conclude here Sean is not doing science, just like
Dumski and his so-called scholars admitted in Dover.
The truth can't hide, you know.

RF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.