From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Mon Apr 30 19:31:34 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D5A17AB2 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:31:33 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D01017B06 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:31:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA67E17AB2 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:31:28 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA06573 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:31:28 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f From: David Jensen 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 Organization: Jensen Family Reply-To: david@dajensen-family.com Message-ID: References: <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> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 117 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:31:15 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@tds.net (TDS.NET help Desk 1-888-815-5992) To: biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sender: owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Precedence: bulk On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:14:42 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism George Hammond wrote in <3AED9F76.CDE10BD6@mediaone.net>: >Gromit wrote: >> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:09:18 GMT, 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. >> >> Proof by logical fallacy. If your proof of a "Gawd" where that reliable why the abuse >> of these fallacies. > >[Hammond] >There are no fallicies. Don't be an idiot, I'm a graduate physicist, >I know what a scientific proof is and what it isn't... What's a scientific proof, I've never heard of that before. > I don't need >any Philosophy jerk giving me amateur lectures on Logic, Posterior >Analytics or any other such nonsense. You can't attack a major scientific >theory involving Psychometry, Factor Analysis and Relativity with >a can opener like "the rules of logic and set theory".... you might as >well go up against an Atomic Bomb with a bow and arrow. > >> >> > 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. >> >> Why? > >[Hammond] >If you were a competent scientist you would know why. But for >a rank amateur like you let us just say it is "statistically >significant" at the p=.001 level. In other words, there is only >1 chance in 1000 it could be an accident. Therefore, >it represents a REAL PHYSICAL FACT. > Actually of course, your question is simply too stupid to >even deserve an answer. I don't think I'll be answering much >more of it. > > >> >> > 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. >> >> Aha, so it's not really proof then? > >[Hammond] >Hey don't go cutsie on me just because you've discovered I'm >big enough to kick your ass scientifically and intellectually. >If you can't insult me, why don't you look for a mark somewhere >else... there are plenty of abusable people around. Why don't >you just politely bow out and disappear and go talk >to some other amateurs. > > >> >> > 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). >> >> And? > >[Hammond] >Still insisting on going cutsie... you must love to get >bitch slapped. > >> >> > 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. >> >> :-) > >[Hammond] > >:- > > >> >> > 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. >> >> Your language suggests that it could very well be a joke indeed. > >[Hammond] >St. Paul addresses you- "Thou fool..", I Corinthians 15:36 >I don't think that was very polite either, but history has >judged it to be the gospel truth. > Hypocrites, pedants, synchophants, and the overpriveleged >in general do not like the sound of the truth.... even >scientific truth. .