Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %
From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_aurigae.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Previous message: Patrick Reany: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?"
- In reply to: Pyriform: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: Pyriform: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: Pyriform: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:01:23 GMT
In sci.physics.relativity, Pyriform
<nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:58:06 +0100
<41098f6a$0$6451$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>:
> George Hammond wrote:
>> Notice that Michael Shermer who wrote
>> the July Scientific American article about Unwin's
>> book (July, page 46) actually GOOFED the calculation
>> and got 2.0 instead of .02. Somebody should have
>> checked his math before he published it in one of the
>> world's premier science maggies.
>
> I haven't seen the print version, but there is nothing wrong with the
> calculations on the web version, which gives the result as "0.02, or 2
> percent."
>
Well personally I think the program proves absolutely nothing.
How one leaps from
"a program produces a certain set of results"
to
"God exists, must be worshipped, and wants your first-born daughter"
is far from clear.
-- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Previous message: Patrick Reany: "Re: There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is beliefevil?"
- In reply to: Pyriform: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: Pyriform: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: Pyriform: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
