Belz...
Fiend God
Guys can we just press him to answer Jay's point and refuse to go further until he does? Remove that out for him.
Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
He's already admitted he won't do it, and elsewhere he admitted that he can't, which is I guess why he's pretending I don't exist. That's good enough for me until the next time he asks what the objections are to his proof. Then we can all point out to him that he never answers the objections.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
We've tried that. Remember "How many going 60 mph are there?" He still has never answered that one.
He'll just keep saying ridiculous things until someone can't stand it anymore and responds, then off we go again.
Hey Jabba!!!
How many "going 60 mph" are there?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
How many answering Jay's questions are there?
He's... never... answered... anything. "Going 60 miles per hour" was just one of a hundred ways of trying to crack through we tried on him with success.
At this point we might as well go back to square one and demand he actually prove immortality but we all know he won't do that.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I think I had been saying that for only a few to several months; I kept saying that P(E) = 1, "in a sense"; and, I was trying to explain why my claim didn't involve a conjunction fallacy, as E (including a body) was a given (at least, in a sense).
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
You've only been aware of it for a few months, but it's been there from the beginning.
Five years! Most people could earn a PhD in that time. But you don't even have an AA in your own goddamn argument.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
"in a sense" is just equivocation, Jabba. It's the same weasel-worded statement as "virtual zero" or any of the other ways you try to make words mean one thing when you need them to and another thing completely when the need changes.
Your argument commits the conjunction fallacy. You tried to fix that by saying P(E) = 1. But as usual, you didn't think about what that meant for the rest of your proof, because you really don't know how the proof actually fits together. Now when you find out that P(E)=1 means your formula gives you the "wrong" answer, you go back to the proposition P(E)=1 and -- without regard for any further consequence -- say that's no longer true. And so you fix the contradiction you're seeing today, but now your argument for avoiding the conjunction fallacy is no longer in force.
You don't have any sort of "big picture" for this proof at all. You're just waffling around in the details fiddling with knobs here and there in hopes that something will eventually look good enough to fool people.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
It's worth pointing out, as well, that the argument based on P(E)=1 didn't actually avoid the conjunction fallacy; in fact, it simply made it more obvious that the proof committed it. This is one of those "fractally wrong" moments.
Dave
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes, we know you've been changing your data based on the conclusion you think it'll lead to. You do understand that this is the worst kind of thinking, right?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
js,
- So, at this point, what do I need to add, or what am I doing wrong?
- Superficially, it seems like you're just asking me to make one of my estimates more accurate/valid.
Belz...
Fiend God
Why do you keep asking this question and ignoring the answer?
We've told you hundreds of times already: your entire approach is wrong in every conceivable way.
You mean, if you make no effort to understand his post?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
jabba,
Please keep in mind that this "is this coin fair?" problem was one you teed up, mostly because you thought it was simple and related to your immortality problem.
And it is a simple problem.
Yet, you have not yet taken a single step towards solving it that was correct. Instead you are like a poor craftsman whose only tool is a hammer. Most statistics problems are not "nails" that can be bludgeoned by Bayes Theorem and wild-ass guesses...but that is your only tool, so that's how you persist.
Your approach does not work.
Meanwhile, I have repeatedly told you what the next step involved, and you have ignored me.
Print out the question and bring it to a Certified StatisticianTM.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
All the parts that are missing. The fact that you don't know what they are means you can't call yourself any sort of "certified statistician." Hence you don't get to rely on people believing that and giving you the benefit of the doubt if they don't understand your actual proof.
You were asked to supply a probability density function for your example. You don't even know what one is. You talk about the mean value of the distribution as if that's the only aspect of a distribution that matters. You're still stuck thinking of probabilities as numbers and not as functions. That's what separates the beginner students from the people who actually use statistics to do useful things.
Failing to learn.
Worse, actually -- you fail to realize and accept that you need to learn, and that there's a lot you need to learn. Sure, you ask questions. But at the end of the day you ignore the answers and retreat back to "But my claim is..." and repeat all your old errors. Your whole performance here and elsewhere is based on the notion that you're a genius statistician who has a remarkable proof that will blow the atheists' socks off, but it just needs some help with the trivial nuances. That self image cannot tolerate the proposition that you're operating essentially at the level of a beginning statistics student and making all kinds of easily-seen mistakes. Further, you're clearly ideologically bound. Everyone can see that you're just misusing what little statistics you know in order to appear to prove something you've already decided to believe in emotionally.
This is the third time I've asked you what else besides the mean of the probability density function would you need to know in order to reckon probabilities according to that distribution. A real statistician would know those answers instantly, because it's the statistical equivalent of a mechanic's 10 mm socket -- things used every day and absolutely necessary to the job. It's clear you don't know what they are, but it's even more disturbing that you won't go research it. The questions people asked you gave you enough information even just to Google an answer, but we get nothing.
Well that's not true -- we get a lot of unwarranted hubris from you. That's really what you're doing wrong. You're so bent on showing up the atheist skeptics that you can't grant them even the slightest win. Instead of learning and discussion, we just get a lot of word games, evasion, and gaslighting when it appears you know you're wrong. You're not honest in your participation, and that shows too. It's insulting and unfair to your critics.
Yes, the request itself is superficial. What you have to do in order to satisfy the request is profound, because it requires knowledge of statistical reasoning as it really is, not as it's taught -- in simplified form -- to high school seniors. Jsfisher and others are inviting you to expand your understanding to fit the proof, rather than simplify the proof as you do so that it fits your understanding. With an expanded understanding you can perhaps appreciate what the nice folks at TalkStats were also trying to tell you: you can't prove what you want to prove using the method you're using.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
js,
- Please tell me again, or point me to your previous attempt to tell me -- and if I can understand it, I'll try to do it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That's why my first question to Jabba, after he said P(E) wasn't 1 anymore, was about the original reasons for saying it did. He believes it solves the problem of the conjunction fallacy. That requires first accepting that the conjunction fallacy was a problem with his proof that needed to be solved. If he then later retracts the "solution," the acceptance of the problem doesn't go away with it. He doesn't get to stop believing it isn't a problem just because his best stab at a solution doesn't work.
It reveals -- as you say -- the fractal nature of his errors. There's one scope of error that's simply the mathematical incompetence. There's another scope of errors in which he can't maintain a consistent set of claims within which the reasoning is supposed to occur.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And as usual, when you find yourself in a corner you set a task for your critics to do so that it seems like the ball is always in their court. Your critics have already been more than helpful. They have no obligation to spoon-feed you the answers when the questions are designed to show you that your claimed basis of expertise is insufficient.
You're constantly telling your critics that they don't think as deeply or as well as you do. Even when talking to statisticians you distinguish between "official" (your scare quotes) statisticians and those like you who have the insight and "holistic" (my scare quotes) understanding to see the problem. In short, you're constantly trying to say that if people don't understand and accept your proof, it must be because they lack some quality that you supposedly possess.
When you lay that kind of foundation for your alleged proof, it is wholly inappropriate to suggest your critics are obliged to lift even a finger to correct what we've come to find out are your gross inadequacies and lack of preparation. We sometimes attempt to teach you, but you have been almost entirely indifferent to that, and to similar efforts on the part of others. You show absolutely no desire to learn anything you don't already know. Therefore we properly recognize these requests from you for repetition or clarification as part of your Debate Theatre that serves only to prolong a failed argument.
Since you don't accept us as your teachers we are forced to remain in the role of your critics. If you cannot see your errors because of your ongoing ignorance and hubris, then your critics have every right to claim victory and conclude that your proof fails forthwith. Which I think I will do -- Jabba, your proof has conclusively failed.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Five years of pointing out your failures in argumentation and your refusal to actually do anything about it.
Why would it be different this time around the merry-go-round of nonsense?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- From Jay.
Fatal flaw 2: You err in your understanding of the probative nature of a statistical inference.
Quote:
The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
No, the strength of the hypothesis depends on how well it explains evidence. You simply make up the alleged relationship between the event and the hypothesis. You frankly stated up front this is what you're doing.
In the proper formulation, the event is a fact. It's neither likely nor unlikely by itself. A hypothesis may be likely or unlikely compared to another hypothesis in light of that fact. That's what this iterative form of inference allows us to determine. I won't continue here, since I wrote on this at length -- and you ignored it. You don't know the difference between an hypothesis and an event.
- Re the hilited part above, I think that we're both right -- except for where Jay says that I'm wrong. Note that in my claim I said, "in part."
- I'll try to get to the rest of FF2 in my next post.
Fatal flaw 2: You err in your understanding of the probative nature of a statistical inference.
Quote:
The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
No, the strength of the hypothesis depends on how well it explains evidence. You simply make up the alleged relationship between the event and the hypothesis. You frankly stated up front this is what you're doing.
In the proper formulation, the event is a fact. It's neither likely nor unlikely by itself. A hypothesis may be likely or unlikely compared to another hypothesis in light of that fact. That's what this iterative form of inference allows us to determine. I won't continue here, since I wrote on this at length -- and you ignored it. You don't know the difference between an hypothesis and an event.
- Re the hilited part above, I think that we're both right -- except for where Jay says that I'm wrong. Note that in my claim I said, "in part."
- I'll try to get to the rest of FF2 in my next post.