Originally posted by queeq
There ya go. That's exactly what those statistics are. The numbers aren't worth anything without knowing where they got them.I think it was two Biblical Archaeology Reviews back that they present an alternative calculation.
In other words, you cannot substantiate your statement.
Originally posted by inimalistOr words.
I see a pattern emerging...
http://www.spirit-works.net/spirit_speaksIII.htm
The whole thing confuses me.
Originally posted by queeq
Now, where are your names?
while I know this is spam, seeing as I addressed this in the ID thread, let me just put in no unclear terms:
I'M NOT THE IDIOT WHO GOES AROUND TRYING TO SOUND IMPRESSIVE BY TALKING ABOUT WHO I'VE SPOKEN WITH, AND THEREFORE I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE I AM NOT REFERENCING
You do, you bring up evidence without telling what your sources are, you debunk everything by asking for sources and not giving any yourself, you call people idiots because you don't agree with them. You DO try to sound impressive by talking all high and mighty how you know stuff, but you don't give any reference either. That, my friend, makes you a hypocrite.
Originally posted by queeq
You do, you bring up evidence without telling what your sources are, you debunk everything by asking for sources and not giving any yourself, you call people idiots because you don't agree with them. You DO try to sound impressive by talking all high and mighty how you know stuff, but you don't give any reference either. That, my friend, makes you a hypocrite.
! 😱 ouch 😱 !
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, you cannot substantiate your statement.
Now, for all those so called skeptics that think I need to present evidence for everything I say, in contradiction to people who think just quoting a bloody tv programme suffices to make a serious claim.
Here's a list of criticisms again that stupid statistical approach to the Jesus Tomb. Not only will it show that the calculations can be questioned but also will it show that you can do anything with numbers.
http://www.ingermanson.com/jesus/art/stats.php
One very interesting by the very statistician that ACTUALLY DID the calculations for the documentary:
http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt
A quote from that article:
The versions of computations appearing in the media are only
simplifications. Furthermore, the results of any such
computations depend heavily on the assumptions that go into it.
Some of these assumptions will be summarized below.
- Andrey Feuerverger
http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1172965954.shtml
Also very interesting:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/35927.html
And another article in which Feuerverger's work and his own critcism to the programma is looked at:
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=544
Anyway, just a quick look into the statistical world.
Next time I ALSO WANT A LIST OF SOURCE MATERIAL FROM ANYONE claiming ANYTHING scientific!!!
Originally posted by queeq
Now, for all those so called skeptics that think I need to present evidence for everything I say, in contradiction to people who think just quoting a bloody tv programme suffices to make a serious claim.Here's a list of criticisms again that stupid statistical approach to the Jesus Tomb. Not only will it show that the calculations can be questioned but also will it show that you can do anything with numbers.
Originally posted by queeq
http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1172965954.shtmlAlso very interesting:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/35927.htmlAnd another article in which Feuerverger's work and his own critcism to the programma is looked at:
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=544
More of the same tired criticisms that have already been addressed in some fashion in this thread.
Originally posted by queeq
One very interesting by the very statistician that ACTUALLY DID the calculations for the documentary:http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt
A quote from that article:
The versions of computations appearing in the media are only
simplifications. Furthermore, the results of any such
computations depend heavily on the assumptions that go into it.
Some of these assumptions will be summarized below.
- Andrey Feuerverger(jeez... isn't that EXACTLY what I was saying... gosh, maybe I DO KNOW THE F*** WHAT I'm talking about!)
No, it is not. You argument is that statistics can be construed to support any argument. His statement only indicates that for the purposes of analysis, the premises by necessity must be presumed to be true.
Originally posted by queeq
The versions of computations appearing in the media are only
simplifications. Furthermore, the results of any such
computations depend heavily on the assumptions that go into it.
Some of these assumptions will be summarized below.
- Andrey Feuerverger
statistics that appear in the media should never be trusted
Every single peer reviewed experiment or study must contain a section dedicated to statistical analysis. These sections must be transparent, and each discipline has tried and true methods of interpreting statistics.
Nothing is ever 100% accurate (we can't test every instance in a given population) but through reading real scientific work, and not media and publicity driven stuff, the issues with the manipulation of statistics goes away because you can see and criticize every step.
Since you want to cry about proofs, recently in my field there was a debate in peer review between two teams of researchers, one lead by Jeremy Wolfe who is a major figure in visual sciences, about whether microsaccades (quick, unconscious eye movements) are an index of the deployment of attention. The entire debate was about statistics, and because everything is done transparently in science, the ability to wiggle and fudge numbers was not there.
wow, you have come to the conclusion that the media lies! What kind of credible academic can you claim to be if you even thought you could trust stuff in the media?
Oh well... I never used the media argument. I said it was unreliable because statistics CAN be used in many ways. Feuerverger is saying exactly that, because there's a lot to know about the numbers and their origins before statistics can be used as reliable. And then people come and say I need to substantiate my claims. I do, and then you say what I posted is oh so obvious. This must be A$$hole Central.
Originally posted by queeq
Oh well... I never used the media argument. I said it was unreliable because statistics CAN be used in many ways. Feuerverger is saying exactly that, because there's a lot to know about the numbers and their origins before statistics can be used as reliable. And then people come and say I need to substantiate my claims. I do, and then you say what I posted is oh so obvious. This must be A$$hole Central.
wow man
I don't think you are in any position to be talking about the decorum of other posters
Take it as a good sign that people aren't just flaming you, as you certainly have done very little to earn any respect from us* (re: me at least)
Originally posted by inimalist
The entire debate was about statistics, and because everything is done transparently in science, the ability to wiggle and fudge numbers was not there.[
O f course not. These people don't set out to wiggle and fudge. But different statistical methods and conditions lead to different conclusions. What scientist is gonna say it can all be fudged?
Yet, these people do present the raw data, I assume. I.e. the facts. THe raw data serves so other people can redo the calculations and even reproduce the measurements for checks. THAT is how science works.
An interesting statistical case was in my country. A nurse was convicted for poisoning patients last year. There was no direct evidence, yet a number of esteemed staticians calculated that the number of suspicious deaths in a number of hospitals she worked at, on her departments was too great to exclude chance. It was accepted in court and in appeal. She was convicted. This year the numbers were crunched again and the conclusions were that the correlation suddenly was not substantial enough. She is to be set free.... True story, mate.
Originally posted by inimalist
wow manI don't think you are in any position to be talking about the decorum of other posters
Take it as a good sign that people aren't just flaming you, as you certainly have done very little to earn any respect from us* (re: me at least)
And what did you do? Hmm... how did you put it.... "act like a dick" you called it?
Originally posted by queeq
O f course not. These people don't set out to wiggle and fudge. But different statistical methods and conditions lead to different conclusions. What scientist is gonna say it can all be fudged?Yet, these people do present the raw data, I assume. I.e. the facts. THe raw data serves so other people can redo the calculations and even reproduce the measurements for checks. THAT is how science works.
An interesting statistical case was in my country. A nurse was convicted for poisoning patients last year. There was no direct evidence, yet a number of esteemed staticians calculated that the number of suspicious deaths in a number of hospitals she worked at, on her departments was too great to exclude chance. It was accepted in court and in appeal. She was convicted. This year the numbers were crunched again and the conclusions were that the correlation suddenly was not substantial enough. She is to be set free.... True story, mate.
I agree and believe you
mind, why any court would accept that as valid evidence is beyond me... I thought "beyond a reasonable doubt" was important
Originally posted by queeq
And what did you do? Hmm... how did you put it.... "act like a dick" you called it?
I wouldn't whine about it if you acted like one back
I'd actually say that the reference of "I know scientists" is what I am speaking to, which is a fairly intellectually dishonest way to approach a topic, when "spoke to scientists for a documentary" might have sufficed.
People may be unreasonably holding you to the fire for what you said, but the "friend of a friend" stuff doesn't play too well here.
The statistics showed at first and at second that it WAS beyond reasonable doubt. According to the judges. But since "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean 100% sure, there's always that chance, right? Even that aspect of the the statistics dídn't work out here.
I can't explain it, but I have seen it several times before (and this time I'm not gonna name sources, because it was at conferences I attended) that numbers alone are not enough. Studying the raw data and where they come from (i.e. the methodology of scientific research) is much more important.
Originally posted by inimalist
I wouldn't whine about it if you acted like one backI'd actually say that the reference of "I know scientists" is what I am speaking to, which is a fairly intellectually dishonest way to approach a topic, when "spoke to scientists for a documentary" might have sufficed.
People may be unreasonably holding you to the fire for what you said, but the "friend of a friend" stuff doesn't play too well here.
Fair enough. And I named some of the people I talked to. Didn't know I ( and I alone) had to present a list of credentials. And then, whaddayaknow, you don't even know some of these quite esteemed scientists... So what does that prove? Nothing.
Interestingly enough someone only has to quote a tv programme to be taken more seriously.
Originally posted by queeq
The statistics showed at first and at second that it WAS beyond reasonable doubt. According to the judges. But since "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean 100% sure, there's always that chance, right? Even that aspect of the the statistics dídn't work out here.I can't explain it, but I have seen it several times before (and this time I'm not gonna name sources, because it was at conferences I attended) that numbers alone are not enough. Studying the raw data and where they come from (i.e. the methodology of scientific research) is much more important.
ya, I doubt anyone is going to disagree with that
I just find it strange, I can't imagine that happening here (I could be ignorant) due to our legal tradition. Statistical significance can't be a substitute for evidence, ESPECIALLY in a court of law.
Well, it was strange case though. There were a large number of similar deaths, prolly people being overdosed with medicine, at several hospitals and always when she was working there and doing the medication. So either she was doing it, quite professionally, or she had a long streak of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.