Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: David Evens (devens_at_technologist.com)
Date: 10/07/04 

Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 04:38:50 -0400

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:06:47 -0400, "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
>news:hd22m0998g58lfd0a3vtktltc43ifigsh3@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 03:49:41 -0400, "George Hammond"
>> <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>> >"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >news:jnsul050gmdt05atatdgmqehbu6rfk40qu@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 07:41:33 -0400, "George Hammond"
>> >> <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>> >> >"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:bn9ql09gbl528pe56c9h8lp71pb9esec2v@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:43:47 -0400, "George Hammond"
>> >> >> <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>
><large snip of inconvenient things>
>
>> >[Hammond]
>> >I have a funny feeling you're wrong. One... Dembski is a serious and
>> >qualified scientist... not a crackpot. Second, unlike any other
>scientist
>> >I have ever appealed to, he's got the same crowd of kooks attacking
>> >him that I do. My guess is that if he scents "scientific truth" in the
>> >SPoG, which given his qulifications is likely, he is going to bother to
>> >dig to the bottom of it.
>>
>> You stated that he was a mathematician, and a statistician. The later
>> can be generally ignored, because statistical theory has gotten most
>> of its important advances from people in other disciplines who need
>> some statistical mechanism that haasn't been developed yet so they
>> went ahead and developed it. (Most frequently from biologists,
>> actually.)
>
>[Hammond]
>No... actually from psychologists.... for instance both Pearson
>and fisher were working on the Statistical theory of Intelligence
>Tests (IQ tests) when Pearson discovered the "correlation coefficient"
>and (Sir) Ronald fisher founded statistical theory.

>From which we can safely conclude that there is no connection between
the begining of statistical theory and psychology, and no connection
between the discovery if correlation coeficients and psychology, and
that neither Fisher nor Pearson had anything to do with IQ tests,
psychology, or statistical theory.

>> You quoted NO physical or bilogical science credentials whatsoever
>
>[Hammond]
>TMG dicovered that Dembski besides having 7 college degrees in
>other subjects, has actually done post graduate work
>in PHYSICS at the University of Chicago:
>
> http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19115
>
>(which contains an excellent photo of Dembski btw.)

So you admit that even people who want to pretend that a scientists
supposrts their crusade for ignorance aren't pretending he has any
qualifications as a biologist.

>> (mathematics and statistics are branches of linguistics, and deal with
>> a language so abstract that it dopesn't even have sociological
>> overtones like linguistics of human languages do), and your reference
>> goes into detail in some cases explaining why the book is, at best,
>> wrong.

No response of any kind for this, I see.

>[meaningless vomit pasted from elsewhere]

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... >and fisher were working on the Statistical theory of Intelligence ... the begining of statistical theory and psychology, ... >> overtones like linguistics of human languages do), ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... >>and fisher were working on the Statistical theory of Intelligence ... > From which we can safely conclude that there is no connection between ... Biology is only "stamp collecting" ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
    ... >>and fisher were working on the Statistical theory of Intelligence ... > From which we can safely conclude that there is no connection between ... Biology is only "stamp collecting" ...
    (sci.math)