Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %
From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:09:25 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:0hhot1-6gp.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> 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.
[Hammond]
Have you considered night school?
>
> --
> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
> It's still legal to go .sigless.
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
