Re: Richard says Rupert Morrish is wrong

On Dec 23, 8:43 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 23, 2:07 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Dec 23, 1:09 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.

0catch.com> wrote:
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analysis need not be published or even written down.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.

You do, however need to have a numerical dataset.

To at least some level, yes. But, the data set need not be very
extensive to be useful.


You have claimed to be able to do statistics *without* using a
numerical dataset.
So what numerical dataset do you use when determining whether an
object is the product of *deliberate* or *non-deliberate* forces?

By the way, I have a lot of experience in trying to describe shape in
terms of a numerical dataset so that I can carry out statistical
analyses, so please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that you
can do all this in your head and come to a valid statistical
conclusion.

All you have to do is be able to remember past
events.

That's called "learning". "Learning" is not statistical analysis.

Learning most certainly is based on statistical analysis.

What nonsense!

How can you
"learn" unless you know how to interpret your memories and use them to
make successful predictions about the future?

That's called "pattern recognition", not statistical analysis. Humans
are very good at it. Machines are pretty crap at it.

Learning not only
incorporates memories, but interprets memories to form hypotheses
about what they mean and how they can be used to interpret future
data.

That's not statistical analysis.


<bullhit snipped>

Basic learning is based on statistics.

As you repeatedly make this assertion yet are unable to produce any
reference whatsoever to support this assertion, this has descended to
the level of promoting an outright falsehood to support your argument.

Why don't you try finding a reference that suggests that learning is
not based on any sort of statistical analysis of data.

Because you are the one making the claim. It's up to you to support
your claim.

That notion is
nonsense. Learning is actually a very complex enterprise that does
involve a great deal of data analysis and interpretation with the use
of statistics.

If that's the case, you should find it easy to produce a reference to
support that claim.



Mind you, I think that you know this, but prefer to suppress this
knowledge, as the admiration of the creationists for whom you strut
your ego is more important to you than honesty or integrity.

Again, you seem bent on some sort of need to question the moral
integrity of those who disagree with you on any topic . . .

No, I merely identify the lack of honesty of people who are dishonest.

RF


RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages
Loading