Re: Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong

On Dec 22, 10:30 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 22, 7:44 am, eerok <krke...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Seanpit wrote:

[...]

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analysis need not be published or even written down.

I for one wouldn't mind a bit if you explored this "not
writing down" concept more fully.

--
"It is not enough to conquer; one must learn to seduce."
    -- Voltaire

Mind you, I'm rather taken by the idea of rats carrying out
statistical analyses. I wonder if Sean has access to a breed of
superintelligent rodents. But then he insists that we all carry out
such analyses all the time *without even knowing it*!

You don't have to be superintelligent to carry out a useful level of
statistical analysis. All you have to do is be able to remember past
events. Even rats can do this. If the location of the cheese in the
maze is generally in a particular place, even if that place is not
always the location of the cheese, it has been shown that rats can
figure out that it saves time, most of the time, to check this
location first. That, my friend, is a valid use of statistical
analysis. Statistically, the odds favor the appearance of the cheese
in a specific location - - and the rats were in fact able to figure
this out without writing anything down or consulting any other rats.

You are also able to do the same thing. That is why you know that a
highly symmetrical polished granite cube is in fact "anomalous" from
the perspective of non-deliberate origin. In fact, it is so anomalous
as to be clearly artifactual for most people - to include most
scientists (even if they were on Mars or some other alien planet).

The same thing is also true for your tool marks. You don't need to
write down your past experiences with tools and tool marks to be able
to recognize the markings of a particular tool as being anomalous or
"artifactual" right away. You are able to do this because your memory
is good enough at remembering past events and adding up the numbers
that you don't need to make a written record of them before you can
use them to help you make useful predictions.

That, again, is a valid use of statistics. No one ever said that
statistics could only be done with pen and paper. Very useful
statistics can be done entirely in ones own head. Arguing otherwise
means that you don't understand the basic nature of learning itself.
Basic learning is based on statistics.

< snip >

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong
    ... Even rats can do this. ... this out without writing anything down or consulting any other rats. ... The same thing is also true for your tool marks. ... That, again, is a valid use of statistics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong
    ... Even rats can do this. ... The same thing is also true for your tool marks. ... That, again, is a valid use of statistics. ... I don't understand why Richard is arguing this point so vehemently, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong
    ... Even rats can do this. ... That, again, is a valid use of statistics. ... I don't understand why Richard is arguing this point so vehemently, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong
    ... Even rats can do this. ... That, again, is a valid use of statistics. ... I don't understand why Richard is arguing this point so vehemently, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong
    ... Even rats can do this. ... The same thing is also true for your tool marks. ... That, again, is a valid use of statistics. ... I don't understand why Richard is arguing this point so vehemently, ...
    (talk.origins)