From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Mon Apr 30 18:22:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8142C17B71 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:22:20 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E76817B6F for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:22:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69CC17B64 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:21:40 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA05561 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:21:40 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f From: "Mark E. Daly" 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 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:22:57 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 104 Message-ID: <3AED9F70.5CA19ED5@mindspring.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 30 Apr 2001 17:20:41 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sender: owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Precedence: bulk George, So Factor Analysis is the only method of proving your fairy. Factor Analysis is statistic analysis of multiple unknown or known, which I have seen a physicist like yourself give a two hour lecture on "Metastable Quantum waves," which actually turned out to be a thesis on how the University of Idaho, Yogi, and the "good waves" given out by the human mind during yogi actually caused glasnost in the mid eighties. He provided no measurable physical properties of these wave, only a statistical examination of that show a drop in crime in a small test site town. He completely ignored other possible factors including that the 25% of the small town population was sitting getting paid to do yogi 2 hours a day, four days a week. Nor did he look at the crime statistic for the previous years, were the crime rate dropping, what type of crimes, did they arrest a habitual criminal before the study started. He ignored all these factor, plus dozens of others. Second his entire thesis a personal belief on the value of Yogi. Have you ever heard a ancient Buddhist or Confucius saying like "Once you have 25% of population doing Yogi, peace shall reign." Let me tell you, he was completely destroyed by the question and answer session after the lecture, his thesis, his calculations, his statistics, his controls, his failure to account for hidden variables and other possible valid explanation, and even the mans sanity was called in question. At least he was able to hide subjective belief far better than you, his abstract sounded very interesting, but his talk was a complete waste. You have failed to even hide your bullshit. The first thing every physicist is taught, statistics can show relationship, and conclusions that don't exist. But your expect people who actually know how flighty statistic can be to be impressed with your beliefs, deflate your fucking head dude. You are just a metaphysical nut case who is a embarrassment to professional physics. Oh, thanks by the way your paper has given me an additional example of the bullshit that statistic can produce, and justify. Also dude, I fully appreciate that your degree is higher than mine, and that you probably know more details on certain areas of physics than I. But Science is about questioning theory, and reproducing those theories by multiple scientist, that is why objectivity is a required component in a scientist. Objectivity is require when writing the details of your theory and the details on the results of the test you performed when validating that theory. If the theory contains subjective bull shit, then unless the person has precisely the same belief structure as the writer, he will not be able to reproduce those results. I can reproduce the test, derivation, and results for the millikan oil drop experiment, schrodinger equation, photoelectric effect, etc. That is what a BS in physics is expected to know, how to read and reproduce a theory from a professional paper. Your paper contains numerous subjective beliefs, and statements, which have no proofs, not testable properties. I find it hard to understand anyone believing in the rambling bad fiction called the bible, but hey to each his or her own. There was no major mathematical part of your paper, but I am sure that the results were intentionally unconsciously skewed by you. Science isn't picking on you, you are just producing shit, not anything close to a valid theory. Additionally dude, if a billion people believe that the moon was made of green cheese, does that alter the moon structure to be green cheese. Of course not, the moon is made of rock, and all the belief to the contrary will never change that. The main difference between you and I, is that I known the difference between objective fact, and subjective beliefs. A good scientist always keeps his personal beliefs out of his work. M. Daly George Hammond 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. > Any competent physicist can see that if you take all 4,000 adjectives > in the dictionary (in any language) that refer to human personality, > and administer them as a self report checklist to 20,000 people, and > compute the 4000x4000 correlation matrix, and find that the 13 eigenvectors > of that real symmetric matrix form a GEOMETRIC CUBE in eigenvector space > .... that that is a SIGNIFICANT and MEANINGFUL hard science discovery. > I'm physicist enough to recognize it, and i'm not going to sit here and > listen to some candyass no nothing tell me different. > Science has KNOWN about this empirical fact for 50 years, and they > couldn't figure out WHY a CUBE EXISTED until i came along and told them. > THE HUMAN BRAIN IS CUBIC for chrissakes. do you think a bunch of research > psychologists are going to figure that out... NO, it takes a PHYSICIST > to recognize it.... and I've discovered it and published it in the > peer reviewed academic literature (Hamond 1994). > NOW, it is only a trivial ONE STEP from there to a scientific proof of > the existence of GAWD.... and I'm the one who has discovered it. > One of these days you aggravated horses asses are going to wake up and > realize you're sitting there ridiculing a serious and competent > scientist and acting like a bunch of assholes.... simply because > "GAWD" is too much for your middle class American brains to appreciate. > ut let me remind you 5-Billion people out there don't think it's > a goddamn joke. > > -- > BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW: > ----------------------------------------------------------- > George Hammond, M.S. Physics > Email: ghammond@mediaone.net > Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html > ----------------------------------------------------------- .