aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
I already did, and you keep deliberately ignoring it
It's obvious you have no real argument about that.
Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?
- Thread starter Buddha
- Start date
I already did, and you keep deliberately ignoring it
It's obvious you have no real argument about that.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And I already explained that all you have to do is admit right here in this thread that you don't know how to form a statistical model, and you'll earn the right to be taught. That's it. How hard can that be? Look at how many other people in this thread have said they don't understand the statistics. They're being treated respectfully and courteously. Why? Because they are honest.
See, when you tried to compare the picture of the interference pattern with the picture of the normal distribution and suggested this prevented statistical analysis, everyone who took even one year of statistics laughed their asses off. And rightly so. The mistake you're making is colossally ignorant. You can't recover from it. No one at this point believes you know much of anything about statistical analysis. So now your only hope is to demonstrate to this forum that you have a shred of honesty about you. So as soon as we have in hand your sincere, unqualified public admission that you don't know how these models work, then we can begin the teaching process. But as long as you're still going to rely on bluff and bluster, you can't and won't learn anything and I'll just be wasting more time on you than I already have.
Or...
You could survey the thread and see where I already explained it. You're fond of ignoring practically every attempt I've already made to teach you. No, not ignoring it -- blatantly crapping all over it. You're frankly hostile to learning. I see no evidence that you're even trying to understand what any of your critics are telling you. It's just knee-jerk denialism. So that has to change before we try -- yet again -- to correct your misunderstanding.
Or...
You could respond to where aleCcowaN already explained it. It's not as if this is obscure information.
Or...
To that end you could pick up literally any introductory statistics text and learn how to construct a distribution from any process that has an expected outcome. The key property of the double-slit apparatus -- or any process -- is not that its product is immediately bell-shaped. Instead the property that allows us to treat those things statistically is that its outcome is predictable from theory or empirically observable for long enough to establish baseline behavior. It doesn't matter what that outcome physically looks like.
But no :--
What we get instead is the same feeble attempts as always to script the debate away from your own failures and weaknesses and dictate the form and footing of the answer. The rest of us are trying to arrive at a cogent understanding of the problems and pitfalls of scientifically testing controversial claims. You're trying to arrange a Keyboard Warrior cage match instead.
Oh, by the way, whoever predicted that Buddha would start trying to pick and choose who the spokesman would be for his opponents just won whatever we give out for things like that.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
We can. You're mistaking disagreement with your argument for misunderstanding it. Your argument is clear. It's just wrong. It's wrong because it's based on assumptions that you, in your ignorance, have decided must be the truth. It's the same mistake you've made in every single one of your threads at this forum. Until you accept the possibly of being wrong, you will not make headway.
No, you tossed out some citations to material you never read and don't understand, bluffing the notion that it supports your claim. You think the mere fact of providing references to the literature supports your misunderstanding.
We read your sources. We understand your sources. We've patiently explained how you're misunderstanding them, or how they don't say what you think they say. We've done this several times. You don't address any of that; you think the job is done the moment you cite a source.
Nor can you explain how the people you recognize as experts fail to see the "obvious" errors you've identified. All this put together would tell a reasonable, honest person that perhaps he is misunderstanding something and that he should stop blaming his critics, slow down, and read the material more carefully. Instead you start with the premise that you're infallible and then spend the rest of the debate trying to defend that proposition even when it's comically obvious you've made a mistake. You seem most concerned with credibility, but you don't recognize that people consider you less credible for clinging to an obvious error.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, they were a failure in design -- egregiously so. Buddha thinks that's all fixed by machinery. I wonder how he would fare critiquing an experiment that had no electrical apparatus for him to say was properly built and therefore the experiment must have worked. To listen to him, psychology research is just a matter of inventing a machine, and if you get the electromechanical design right, you're all set. But in addition to comically gullible experiment design, Hasted also failed to provide a statistical argument for his claims of significance and non-correlation to the controls. He didn't show his work, therefore he doesn't get credit. As all those pretty casinos in Las Vegas demonstrate, people are very inaccurate when they try to estimate probability intuitively.
Hence why he has to admit publicly that he's stumped on the double-slit question. How many times have we given the answer, and Buddha follows up with a flurry of links to show he's hastily post-Googled that answer and now wants to pretend he already knew all about it? Not this time. Before he gets the answer he has to go on the record saying he doesn't know it, or asserting that there is none.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
I want to take a break for the sake of those not so trained in statistics and do an exposé of """"Buddha"""" claimed fine mathematical skills, including a BS (probably short for bull something) in applied maths.
You all may remember that he claimed to have written a booklet named "Critique of the Theory of Evolution" by Resource Publications, from Eugene, OR (so he gave away his supposed real name willingly). Well, here is a sample where you can watch """"Buddha"""" falling in a deep hole (and """"Buddha"""", if you don't like it to be quoted here, tell the moderators that you will sue the forum owner if it's not taken away):
Walter Friedman said:
Where can we start in such large steaming pile of manure? Let's start with the "math"
- Notice that he starts by making a strawman on what evolution says, including the "exponential growth" (tending to infinite) instead of one logistic function that he doesn't know (he'll probably google it, post a copypasta and bark some explanation about how he knows it and I don't, what will be his basic modus operandi)
- Why would "q" be the "average number of members that will reach the reproductive age" and N the total population. He could have estimated the ratio by dividing two totals or two averages. But, what's the use of dividing something that develops in a future time and some current value? and, why is "survival" defined as reaching reproductive age,without even actually reproducing being important? The goal was to get a number <1 and that's right only because not all young survive.
- With this R<1, he oversimplifies any analysis actually related with real living being population by invoking an exponential function which tends to zero. That way, no matter how high the value of his constant A (related with the cubs), the value of Pk tends irremediably to 0. That is: if they have 4 cubs with the new advantageous mutation, the mutation will become extinct. If they have 100 cubs, it'll only take a little longer to get extinct. BECAUSE YOU KNOW: IF A MUTATION IS ADVANTAGEOUS THE RESULT IS THE MUTATION BECOMING EXTINCT AND THE DISADVANTAGEOUS STATU QUO BECOMING A 100% SUCCESS. According to """"Buddha"""" only "non random" mutations can become a new standard for a species.
- """"Buddha"""" says "after about 20 generations it is, for al practical purposes, equal to zero" what we can sum up as "an advantageous random mutation in an individual is passed to at least two cubs (it's in the strawman). Some way this change propagates but then dwindles until it disappears in 20 generations. And to describe that going up, then down, """"Buddha"""" uses a function that only goes down. [And, """"Buddha"""", don't try to make foolish excuses: for that to be different A should be a function and not a "proportionality constant" as you declare it is).
- I leave for you to evaluate the veracity of the paragraph «This is how the probability theory puts the evolutionary theory to shame. It is no wonder that the geneticists and mathematicians are among the most ardent opponents of Darwin's theory» together with the basic conundrum of how an advantageous mutation can become extinct while the not so advantageous model thrives. You don't need any math to verify or answer to that.
- Notice the obsession of "Buddha" with statistics and how he fancies to fantasize he knows something about it.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Do lies that flagrant work for you in real life?
I ask out of curiosity. Does your tendency to waver between insults of varying degrees and feigned concern / respect actually FOOL the people you know in real life? It's not working here.
Your scientifically illiterate posts devolved into insults and nonsense quite some time ago. Pretending otherwise is fooling nobody, especially as this forum has a time limit on how long you can edit posts. This prevents you from tossing your past errors into a memory hole.
Regardless of your answer, should you give one (which I doubt) I suggest you invest in a dictionary. Your odd insistence that an insult must cause actual emotional distress to be an insult is an absurdity unique to you.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insult
Note how both the noun and the verb forms of the word lack any hint of your qualifier that the insult must "hurt" the person being insulted. I warn you, while I am a computer programmer and DBA today, I was an English major in college. Venturing into queer definitions for words in posts of yours I actually read could get you a tongue lashing the like of which aleCcowaN and JayUtah have yet to deliver to your childish drivel regarding statistics. Playing at Alice's Humpty Dumpty may fly with the people subjected to your presence in meat space, but it simply won't do here. Yes, language evolves (R.I.P. the useful definition of "literally") but flagrantly lying about the common meaning of words is something I will not tolerate young man / girl / non-binary person / and so on.
Alice may have been too puzzled to take the egg shaped stuffed shirt to task, but I'm watching you now. Not very closely mind. I'm only skimming the thread at this point.
Last edited:
Your evaluation of yourself as an opponent is astonishing, and somewhat sad.
You could avoid the humiliation that is continually meted out to you by just admitting that you are in deep waters. Not reading and responding to opponents except to call them names, or changing the subject does not make you a superior debater. Or maybe you are used to oral debates where such tactics can indeed persuade an ignorant audience?
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,821
That sort of thing is certainly the norm most places online. That, and a liberal use of actual insults. I don't know that this tactic actually works, in terms of convincing general readers of the points being made, but certainly that is how most "debates" and "discussions" are conducted in most forums online. These here JREF/ISF forums are very unusual in that they do not, thanks to the rules and the moderation (as well as the kind of people who tend to visit these forums), facilitate that form of "debate".
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Are you drunk? I cannot fathom how an allegedly sober person could come to such an absurd conclusion. It is a bald faced lie steeped in hubris. You are quite literally the only person in this thread, perhaps the only person on the planet, making such a nonsensical claim.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Don't pay so much attention to what """"Buddha"""" says in the spur of the moment when he's hurt. The worst thing to do with a child is give them confirmation that their tantrums get results.
He's just trying to diminish our friend because Jay was very successful in pointing the horror of """"Buddha"""" 's ignorance for everyone to see. And that's about it.
So, 9 y.o. tantrums and insults: to be ignored. 53 y.o tantrums to be analysed because he's trying to cast attention out of some big blunder he just realized he committed.
One sure thing about """"Buddha"""" is that he overstates professional qualifications and add some invented ones. Maybe in part because of a foreign degree gotten in Krapysgrad Politeknik which was not validated in the USA, and most probably because of what social climbing and standing means in his third world mind: by standing on his social pathology, he's precluded from understanding why most of us don't brag and publish all of our "parchments" here and talk about them all the time, so he concludes we must have none.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You said it yourself: he's the most inept gaslighter you've ever seen.
Buddha
Thinker
“In order to assess the direction of the forces operating on the surface
of the metal, five sessions, four with North and one with another subject,
were conducted using metal squares or discs instead of bars (Hasted &
Robertson, 1979). A configuration of three strain gauges was set up on the
surface of each specimen, two pointing orthogonally to each other and a
third bisecting the angle between the other two. From these, separate extension and contraction vectors could be calculated for each signal.
According to Hasted, the application of positive stress should produce
extension along one diameter and an equal contraction along the opposite. Again, however, the results were not as orderly as this
hypothesis would lead one to expect. First of all, no preferred directions
of strain could be detected. Moreover, there were no consistent ratios
between the magnitudes of the corresponding extension and contraction
signals. In fact, in about 25% of the cases extensions were accompanied by
extensions or contractions by contractions: "metal churning" again.” Palmer, page 184
First of all, Hasted didn’t say anything about a preferred direction, Palmer put his own words into Hasted’s mouth, and then reported that he found an inconsistency in Hasted’s report. Besides, there is no reason why a preferred direction exists, and Palmer didn’t explain why its absence is so significant. There cannot be consistent ratios between the magnitudes of the corresponding extension and contraction signals because the material is not pure (a pure material without doping would be extremely expensive and it is not required for this experiment t). But Palmer doesn’t have even a minimal knowledge of the metallurgy, so his critique means nothing.
“Two experiments were conducted to determine the localization of the
ostensible strain along the length of a metal strip. In the first
experiment, consisting of three sessions, three strain gauges were aligned
along the surface of the strip (Hasted, 1978). In a later experiment, which
involved five sessions with North as the subject, the number of sensors was
increased to five (Hasted & Robertson, 1980). Dummy loads were also
utilized in this latter experiment.
In both experiments the output tended to be greatest from the middle
sensor. Hasted equated the distribution of signal strengths along the
lengths of the specimen to a Gaussian distribution. Although it strikes me
as problematic to define a curve by five and especially by three data
points, it seems fair to say that the strength of the signals tended to fall
off monotonically and symmetrically from the center. Palmer, page 184
Yes, usually the researchers use more than 5 points to draw a conclusion about the nature of a distribution. But if the magnitudes of signals tended to fall
off monotonically and symmetrically from the center, it is almost guaranteed that it is possible to use a transformation to bring a distribution to normal form. Let’s say we assume that the distribution is not normal. Would that invalidate Hasted’s experiments? Palmer didn’t say anything about that, so his critique is pointless.
of the metal, five sessions, four with North and one with another subject,
were conducted using metal squares or discs instead of bars (Hasted &
Robertson, 1979). A configuration of three strain gauges was set up on the
surface of each specimen, two pointing orthogonally to each other and a
third bisecting the angle between the other two. From these, separate extension and contraction vectors could be calculated for each signal.
According to Hasted, the application of positive stress should produce
extension along one diameter and an equal contraction along the opposite. Again, however, the results were not as orderly as this
hypothesis would lead one to expect. First of all, no preferred directions
of strain could be detected. Moreover, there were no consistent ratios
between the magnitudes of the corresponding extension and contraction
signals. In fact, in about 25% of the cases extensions were accompanied by
extensions or contractions by contractions: "metal churning" again.” Palmer, page 184
First of all, Hasted didn’t say anything about a preferred direction, Palmer put his own words into Hasted’s mouth, and then reported that he found an inconsistency in Hasted’s report. Besides, there is no reason why a preferred direction exists, and Palmer didn’t explain why its absence is so significant. There cannot be consistent ratios between the magnitudes of the corresponding extension and contraction signals because the material is not pure (a pure material without doping would be extremely expensive and it is not required for this experiment t). But Palmer doesn’t have even a minimal knowledge of the metallurgy, so his critique means nothing.
“Two experiments were conducted to determine the localization of the
ostensible strain along the length of a metal strip. In the first
experiment, consisting of three sessions, three strain gauges were aligned
along the surface of the strip (Hasted, 1978). In a later experiment, which
involved five sessions with North as the subject, the number of sensors was
increased to five (Hasted & Robertson, 1980). Dummy loads were also
utilized in this latter experiment.
In both experiments the output tended to be greatest from the middle
sensor. Hasted equated the distribution of signal strengths along the
lengths of the specimen to a Gaussian distribution. Although it strikes me
as problematic to define a curve by five and especially by three data
points, it seems fair to say that the strength of the signals tended to fall
off monotonically and symmetrically from the center. Palmer, page 184
Yes, usually the researchers use more than 5 points to draw a conclusion about the nature of a distribution. But if the magnitudes of signals tended to fall
off monotonically and symmetrically from the center, it is almost guaranteed that it is possible to use a transformation to bring a distribution to normal form. Let’s say we assume that the distribution is not normal. Would that invalidate Hasted’s experiments? Palmer didn’t say anything about that, so his critique is pointless.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
More of the same soap opera
The countess said ... the evil twin said
The countess said ... the evil twin said
Buddha
Thinker
So I do not have a clue. Enlighten me, teach me, grandmaster! Share your wisdom about the normally distributed variable that you mentioned in several of your posts. Here is a deal -- I will honestly admit that I know nothing about mathematical statistics if you name that normally distributed variable. All it takes to prove once and for all that I am dilettante or even a conman is to name that variable.
Keep in mind that your supporters are also waiting for you to name that mystery variable that you claim exists.
But, as they say, every sword has two edges - if you fail to name that variable, I will continue calling myself a superior debater compared to you.
Buddha
Thinker
I would like to express my opinion about the board members. Jay wrote that I think they are stupid. This is bs, it cannot be farther from the truth. Before joining the board I did my homework by reading the members’ posts on various topics. I like what I saw. Vast majority of the members are very intelligent individuals who have interesting and productive debates on multiple topics including science, engineering, politics and even conspiracy theories.
To compare and contrast with some other boards: year ago I joined Christian Forum without researching them first. I thought they are mainstream Christians. Turned out, they are Christian conservatives belonging to marginal denominations, so I lost my appetite for any discussion there.
All boards that I visited, including this one, have one thing in common – except for a few experts, their members are not familiar with a handful of areas including Buddhism, cults like Scientology and Hare Krishna, horticulture (just kidding) and mathematical statistics.
Majority of the science-oriented boards are frequented by the people who have degrees and professional experience in engineering, computer science, chemistry, genetics, economics and architecture. None of these fields requires knowledge of mathematical statistics.
Currently Jay and I are having a debate that includes our interpretations of mathematical statistics. It is hard for a person with little experience in this field to follow our debate. A person might be exceptionally bright, but if he/she had only a brief exposure to the new field a debate seems difficult to understand, it requires some time to absorb new data. Once new data is digested, it becomes easy to follow a debate and even participate in it.
Jay and I use diametrically opposed tactics. I provided abundance of data supporting my point of view (perhaps, too much data for a person not familiar with the field), while Jay provided next to nothing printed data proving that his nonorthodox views on mathematical statistics are in touch with reality.
In response to my request to present a psychological study with rejected outliers, he gave his own description of a sociological study without the outliers that were excluded from statistical analysis of the study data. Besides, that was his own paraphrase of the study, and I cannot be sure that he correctly reflected the study documentation.
I do not think that Jay is a liar; I think that he honestly gives the audience his material that he thinks correctly reflects basic and advanced ideas of mathematical statistics. But he has a much bigger problem of a different kind – he is innately unable to grasp even the simplest notions of mathematical statistics. I am not a psychiatrist, so I do not have an explanation of the irrational strategy that he chose for this debate (I haven’t seen his other debates),
Currently all Jay’.
die-hard supporters are solidly behind him. But their support cannot last indefinitely because they are rational people, at least I hope so; as time goes by, I will be presenting more and more references in favor of my position, and Jay will present none. Sooner or later even his staunchest supporters will start questioning his authority and, perhaps, something else.
To compare and contrast with some other boards: year ago I joined Christian Forum without researching them first. I thought they are mainstream Christians. Turned out, they are Christian conservatives belonging to marginal denominations, so I lost my appetite for any discussion there.
All boards that I visited, including this one, have one thing in common – except for a few experts, their members are not familiar with a handful of areas including Buddhism, cults like Scientology and Hare Krishna, horticulture (just kidding) and mathematical statistics.
Majority of the science-oriented boards are frequented by the people who have degrees and professional experience in engineering, computer science, chemistry, genetics, economics and architecture. None of these fields requires knowledge of mathematical statistics.
Currently Jay and I are having a debate that includes our interpretations of mathematical statistics. It is hard for a person with little experience in this field to follow our debate. A person might be exceptionally bright, but if he/she had only a brief exposure to the new field a debate seems difficult to understand, it requires some time to absorb new data. Once new data is digested, it becomes easy to follow a debate and even participate in it.
Jay and I use diametrically opposed tactics. I provided abundance of data supporting my point of view (perhaps, too much data for a person not familiar with the field), while Jay provided next to nothing printed data proving that his nonorthodox views on mathematical statistics are in touch with reality.
In response to my request to present a psychological study with rejected outliers, he gave his own description of a sociological study without the outliers that were excluded from statistical analysis of the study data. Besides, that was his own paraphrase of the study, and I cannot be sure that he correctly reflected the study documentation.
I do not think that Jay is a liar; I think that he honestly gives the audience his material that he thinks correctly reflects basic and advanced ideas of mathematical statistics. But he has a much bigger problem of a different kind – he is innately unable to grasp even the simplest notions of mathematical statistics. I am not a psychiatrist, so I do not have an explanation of the irrational strategy that he chose for this debate (I haven’t seen his other debates),
Currently all Jay’.
die-hard supporters are solidly behind him. But their support cannot last indefinitely because they are rational people, at least I hope so; as time goes by, I will be presenting more and more references in favor of my position, and Jay will present none. Sooner or later even his staunchest supporters will start questioning his authority and, perhaps, something else.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,482
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Neither possibility shows Buddha in a good light.
In which case you need to go back to school and study the English language a bit more. Your comments come across a incredibly condescending and insulting. You write as if your intention is to demean everyone who disagrees with you. Either you are lying about that not being your intention, or you are too inept at communicating to convey your ideas coherently.
Which is it? Are you lying or a poor communicator?
In which case you need to go back to school and study the English language a bit more. Your comments come across a incredibly condescending and insulting. You write as if your intention is to demean everyone who disagrees with you. Either you are lying about that not being your intention, or you are too inept at communicating to convey your ideas coherently.
Which is it? Are you lying or a poor communicator?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, that wasn't the deal.
I didn't say "name" the variable. I'm going to describe how a random variable can be derived in the double-slit and similar experiments. In fact, I already have -- you just ignored that post like every other time I tried to educate you. Keep in mind that anyone who's been reading this thread carefully already knows the answer is out there, so there's no point in you continuing to bluff that it isn't. And keep in mind that anyone who knows anything about statistics can already tell you don't know what you're talking about when you tried to compare the two pictures. So you really have no face to save here. You can just be honest.
Just admit in public, for the record, that you are a beginner when it comes to statistics. Why is that so hard? The deal is that you don't get to wait for the answer and then try to claim you knew it all along. We're going to forestall that particular bad habit of yours. Are you willing to do that? Or are you just hoping to play the same games you always do?
You can call yourself whatever you want, but you can't force anyone to believe it no matter how hard you bluster and gaslight.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That's all you ever do. Your whole argument is based on personal attacks, gaslighting, and poisoning the well, whether your victim is me or authors in the field. You have time to write these lengthy diatribes against individual critics, but no time to talk about the statistical basis behind PK research.
Good luck with that.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,482
I hope you'll take it in the spirit intended when I say that this is not how the discussion comes across.
Rather, it appears that you prefer to link to articles which the layman may assume support whatever point you wish to claim, while Jay is able patiently to explain in his own words and has no need to try to impress us by leaning on the authority of some impressively-credentialed author explaining the same thing. Tellingly, he is also able to explain in his own words why your links do not support your claims.