Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Jabba said:
- from Jay
Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.

This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand
- Unless someone wants to clarify this for me, I'll have to skip it...
Click to expand...

Wow, you can't even dodge his points properly.
 
Belz... said:
Wow, you can't even dodge his points properly.
Click to expand...

It's even stupider than that. Remember last time he tried the one-at-a-time approach and I broke him off to tell him he was wrongly including explanatory text for the next flaw, not the one he was addressing?

Well, he's doing it again.

I excused him the first time. But if he's going to flagrantly ignore the instructions and the reasons for them, and make the same mistakes he did before, then I can't imagine why anyone would indulge him or have sympathy for him this time around. He knows I'm going to summarily reject answers that don't fit the form I specified. I can imagine he's only doing this in order to keep distracting from the two pickles he's in today with jsfisher and jt512. As long as he can pretend he's addressing the high-level problems he won't have to supply the PDF jsfisher asked for.
 
So he's combining the note from "fatal flaw" #4 with "fatal flaw" #3, and therefore not understanding #3?

:sdl:
 
Well, to be fair, keeping track of electronic documents that are posted online is really hard.

Remember years ago in the Shroud thread when someone offered to walk him through how to use Evernote? We were incredulous - this is your life's work, and you don't have a filing system?
 
carlitos said:
Well, to be fair, keeping track of electronic documents that are posted online is really hard.

Remember years ago in the Shroud thread when someone offered to walk him through how to use Evernote? We were incredulous - this is your life's work, and you don't have a filing system?
Click to expand...

This is something you see a lot with Woo Slingers, an almost fanatical need to not have anything they are saying stored or organized in any logical or easily accessible way.

The need to keep everything an in-the-moment stream of consciousness is a need a lot of Woo Slingers need to have.

It's somewhat odd for Jabba given his tendency to fall back on the lists and flowcharts when argued into a corner, but it's pretty common in general.
 
Jabba said:
- from Jay
Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.



This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand
- Unless someone wants to clarify this for me, I'll have to skip it...
Click to expand...

You also skipped #2 for reasons you cannot explain.

http://www.talkstats.com/threads/immortality-bayesian-statistics.60035/post-206723. Your last incomplete post on talkstats.
 
JayUtah said:
This is not what I asked you to do. Answer rejected. Also there has been considerable discussion since your last post about your anti-compliance. Please provide some evidence that you have paid attention to it and have a plan to remedy it.
Click to expand...
Jabba has already stated that he only reads the first line of ANY response. Thus, any response longer than a single line will be ignored.

Have I posted longer replies? Have you? Has everyone? Sure. But that means that Jabba's imaginary jury is reading those too. And by dint of doing so, ANY independent jury is finding a want of attention span.

Jabba will neither understand this nor read this.
 
Jabba said:
- from Jay
Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.



This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand
- Unless someone wants to clarify this for me, I'll have to skip it...
Click to expand...
The fatal flaw stands, you lose. Game over.
 
- From Jay:
Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is.



And as with all fringe theorists, you try to drive a speculative wedge into the inductive gap in order to shift the burden of proof. You have explicitly said that all you need is a "reasonable alternative" to hold by default after you've purported to claim the prevailing theory is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.

- Yeah. If the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply, all we need is a real number for P(~H), and P(H|E) is too small to take seriously.
 
Jabba said:
- From Jay:
Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is.



And as with all fringe theorists, you try to drive a speculative wedge into the inductive gap in order to shift the burden of proof. You have explicitly said that all you need is a "reasonable alternative" to hold by default after you've purported to claim the prevailing theory is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.

- Yeah. If the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply, all we need is a real number for P(~H), and P(H|E) is too small to take seriously.
Click to expand...

- First of all, that doesn't answer the fatal flaw at all.
- Second, no, you can't just hand-wave the fallacy YOU'RE MAKING away.
- Third, no, removing that fallacy doesn't remove the other flaws, which is why Jay asked you to do all of them at once.
- Fourth, this isn't what Jay asked you.
- Fifth, your explanation is nonsense. You have not demonstrated that P(H|E) is small. Quite the opposite. The only thing you've managed to demonstrate is that it is quite large.
 
Last edited:
Fatal flaw 5: Your argument is a blatant false dilemma.

Quote:
The above is one of the ‘avenues’ of Bayesian statistics.
You admitted you don't know how Bayesian methods work. Do not thereafter purport to teach others.
- I don't know -- or, don't remember -- the right words to use, but so far, I think that I understand the concepts better than most (if not all) of you guys.

Quote:
If something occurs that is likely to occur – given a particular hypothesis – the event is evidence for the hypothesis. That’s the other avenue.
No. This is your fundamental misunderstanding of statistical inference. You employ only a single-hypothesis formulation. You must reckon this as one hypothesis against another, or as one hypothesis against the set of all other possible hypotheses. You have not done this.
- Yes, I have. Somewhere, back there (you guys can find it faster than I can), I showed how I arrived at P(E|~H).

Quote:
My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
No. Your theory was that you have an immortal soul -- that particular affirmative theory. Throwing shade on one of several other possible theories doesn't support yours.
- No. I revised that to ~OOFLam.
 
Jabba said:
Fatal flaw 5: Your argument is a blatant false dilemma.

Quote:
The above is one of the ‘avenues’ of Bayesian statistics.
You admitted you don't know how Bayesian methods work. Do not thereafter purport to teach others.
- I don't know -- or, don't remember -- the right words to use, but so far, I think that I understand the concepts better than most (if not all) of you guys.

Quote:
If something occurs that is likely to occur – given a particular hypothesis – the event is evidence for the hypothesis. That’s the other avenue.
No. This is your fundamental misunderstanding of statistical inference. You employ only a single-hypothesis formulation. You must reckon this as one hypothesis against another, or as one hypothesis against the set of all other possible hypotheses. You have not done this.
- Yes, I have. Somewhere, back there (you guys can find it faster than I can), I showed how I arrived at P(E|~H).

Quote:
My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
No. Your theory was that you have an immortal soul -- that particular affirmative theory. Throwing shade on one of several other possible theories doesn't support yours.
- No. I revised that to ~OOFLam.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that simply saying "nuh-huh" is not an argument, a demonstration or a counter?

I think that I understand the concepts better than most (if not all) of you guys.
Click to expand...

You must be joking. You understand literally NOTHING of any of those concepts. You have no idea what the words are, what the concepts mean, or how these mathematical principles are used. You know nothing about logic or reason or math or reality.

- Yes, I have. Somewhere, back there (you guys can find it faster than I can), I showed how I arrived at P(E|~H).
Click to expand...

No, you just pulled 0.062 out of your ass.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- I don't know -- or, don't remember -- the right words to use, but so far, I think that I understand the concepts better than most (if not all) of you guys.
Click to expand...

Jabba, if you actually believe this, then the depths of your self delusion are way beyond a dangerous level. Just yesterday you again demonstrated clearly and unambiguously that you understand none of the concepts in question and begged for help in telling you what you need to do to fix your understanding. Throughout this whole debacle, you have demonstrated that you have no concept of logic or reason, and now you have made it abundantly clear that you haven't got a clue about statistics either. Any neutral jury will of course, see all of this clearly. You, of course, cannot.
 
Jabba said:
- From Jay:
Click to expand...

You are not following the instructions. Answers rejected.

You know you're not following the instructions. You know your answers are going to be summarily rejected because of that. You know -- or should have known -- the instructions had a stated purpose behind them, which you have not disputed or addressed so as even to try to justify your flagrant disregard.. You leave your critics little choice but to conclude that you are flouting the exercise deliberately.
 
Last edited:
jond said:
...you again demonstrated clearly and unambiguously that you understand none of the concepts in question and begged for help in telling you what you need to do to fix your understanding.
Click to expand...

Which is why he's now frantically trying to distract from that by pretending to satisfy the "broad strokes" discussion -- but deliberately doing everything I asked him not to do in the process.

Notice how no one is pressing him for the PDF jsfisher asked him for? Notice how no one is pressing the P(E)=1 premise he's trying to walk back. Jabba knows very well how to distract critics away from what he desperately wants them not to talk about. He flits from topic to topic as he is quartered. The "fatal flaw" list was meant to force Jabba to address all the grave errors in his proof at once. But now he' just using each one as a flitting point.

He's got nothing. He's just playing games, and everywhere else he's gone has shut him down rather quickly because of it. At the other forum -- the one specifically statistics oriented -- they told him not only that he didn't understand anything about what he was trying to do, but they also questioned whether he could even be taught. Jabba intends to build his proof on a foundation of claimed expertise. The evidence shows that to be a weak foundation.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Fourth, this isn't what Jay asked you.
Click to expand...

He hasn't even figured out that he's once again quoting the wrong section of the discussion to go with each individual flaw. Even after I and others posted a number of times about it just last night.

If you needed any more evidence that he's paying zero attention to anything besides his own voice...
 
Jabba said:
- From Jay:
Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is.



And as with all fringe theorists, you try to drive a speculative wedge into the inductive gap in order to shift the burden of proof. You have explicitly said that all you need is a "reasonable alternative" to hold by default after you've purported to claim the prevailing theory is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.

- Yeah. If the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply, all we need is a real number for P(~H), and P(H|E) is too small to take seriously.
Click to expand...

What makes a number too small to take seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom