From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Tue May 8 14:26:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3428C17A78 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 14:26:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677A317B17 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 14:26:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F12117A78 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 14:26:14 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA01130 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Tue, 8 May 2001 14:26:13 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f From: ewill@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net (The Ghost In The Machine) X-Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.athiesm,alt.sci.physics,alt.talk.creationism,bionet.biophysics,harvard.course.physics11a.q-a,sci.bio.paleontology,sci.physics,talk.atheism Subject: Re: The "Science" of John Boatwright References: <3ae7e476_2@news01.one.net.au> <3AE81A39.DCB403E7@mediaone.net> <3AE84A63.91AF7B61@ozone.ch> <3AE879D7.DE3494E1@mediaone.net> <3ae8b06a.109420557@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AE8B9E2.A73DB51B@mediaone.net> <1127_988344536@GANDALF> <3AE9B280.8406B3B2@mediaone.net> <3AEADE18.6CDCEC04@mediaone.net> <3aeafab8.259537105@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AEB1B0F.5D8C32D3@mediaone.net> <3AEC8193.FA637652@mediaone.net> <3AEC80E6.B2458DB@hvc.rr.com> <3AEC975E.37157E09@mediaone.net> <3AECB09B.83C68B85@mindspring.com> <3AED2DAD.810FE326@mediaone.net> <1103_988647178@GANDALF> <3AED9F76.CDE10BD6@mediaone.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux) Lines: 80 Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:26:06 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net Organization: Verio To: biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sender: owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Precedence: bulk In talk.atheism, George Hammond wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:14:42 GMT <3AED9F76.CDE10BD6@mediaone.net>: >Gromit wrote: >> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:09:18 GMT, George Hammond >> ghammond@mediaone.net> wrote: >> > Mark E. Daly wrote: >> > >> > > PS: I find it funny that a master degree in Physics is writing >> > > about Psychology word associations. You do know that English >> > > and all languages have no mathematical bases at all. Let me >> > > take a guess, you can't get a job or accepted into any >> > > reputable school. >> > >> > [Hammond] >> > Too bad you're not intelligent enough to understand Factor Analysis, >> > or physicist enough to understand that FACTOR ANALYSIS is the >> > only known scientific method that can actually prove the existence >> > of "Gawd". >> > You have a BS in physics... apparently you have half a brain... >> > half a brain is apparently not enough. >> >> Proof by logical fallacy. If your proof of a "Gawd" where that >> reliable why the abuse of these fallacies. > >[Hammond] >There are no fallicies. Uh.... http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/news/atheism/logic.html unless you're quibbling about the spelling of "fallacies". :-) A lot of these fallacies creep into alleged proofs of deities. I can't say in your specific case, of course, but that's why scientists insist on peer review. And, to be fair, a lot of theists on alt.atheism are, to put it charitably, less than gifted in their intellectual ability to debate with vegetable matter... this may be more reflective of the selection process (the intelligent ones tend to look elsewhere) than anything else, as a fair number of men in history were both intelligent and believers in God -- which just means that the two aren't antipodal. One interesting omission in the above link -- the "the universe is so complex it must have been designed" argument. (I'm not sure if that's a fallacy, or not -- or what fallacy it would be under. Personally, I think that argument is wrong, but can't prove it offhand. Perhaps something in http://www.talkorigins.org might be of assistance, were I interested in pursuing this.) As for Factor Analysis -- I for one am not familiar with it. The Web (Google, actually) suggests that it is related to analysis of statistical data -- the web site http://www.statsoftinc.com/textbook/stfacan.html seems to have a reasonable explanation of this discipline. (I can't say whether it's correct or not, mind you -- but then, I can't say whether Humpty Dumpty was right in defining "glory" either, except by referring to a dictionary -- again, a form of peer review, if the dictionary is one correctly. If I don't find a satisfactory answer there, I can try to find another, or an encyclopedia.) In case you're wondering, I know just enough statistics to be dangerous. :-) (My specialties are more in line with finite automata, software development, and maybe a smidge of group theory thrown in for good measure. But don't ask me to perform a chi-squared test; I know it exists, but that's all.) [rest snipped] -- ewill@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here EAC code #191 8d:16h:28m actually running Linux. I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it. .