Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ June 10 2015,19:28) | | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 10 2015,11:48) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2015,02:38) | | Quote (dazz @ June 09 2015,16:43) | GG should meet this guy
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?....=50&p=1
Another crackpot who thinks he proved the (non existing) theory of ID based on a pattern derived from the Star Trek TV series. Yes, you read that right, apparently god is a trekkie too!
Someone needs to do a sequel of Dumb & Dumber with these two guys, oh boy what a laugh |
I scanned through their paper. If I were reviewing it for a publisher then I would have to say it contains no theory (explaining how intelligent cause works) and has to be rejected.
As often happens in academia the issue is reduced to the opinion of one person (or group) versus another. To get to the scientific core of the issue I don't care what either side says. Regardless of easily being interpreted as a religious statement what matters is whether the stated premise of the theory can somehow be put into scientific context. That is why the all important premise of the theory in my signature line, and I'm easily annoyed by the "He said she said" arguments. |
| Quote | | I scanned through their paper. If I were reviewing it for a publisher then I would have to say it contains no theory (explaining how intelligent cause works) and has to be rejected. |
What does "scanned" mean? Does it mean that you didn't read the whole thing carefully and test its results for yourself? Do you consider that to be scientifically ethical--to make a judgment on the basis of "scanning"? Isn't that the same thing you often complain about, that people haven't "studied" your "theory" before deciding it's worthless? Isn't that a bit hypocritical on your part?
You say it should be rejected because it "...contains no theory (explaining how intelligent cause works)..." Was the purpose of the paper to present research results regarding how intelligence works? I don't think so. So it seems you would reject any paper that doesn't present a theory explaining how intelligence works, even if the authors don't make that claim?
On the basis of "scanning" the paper, would you agree with the characterization of the authors as crackpots? Why or why not? |
To be fair to Gary on this one, I also "scanned" (just the first part of) the Dubreuil & Koliada manuscript (we are talking about the "Star Trek proves god" paper, right?), and even though the first author claims
| Quote | Seriously, you can't review the paper within a few hours. It takes at least a month to examine the whole paper. Not even experienced reviewers can review a paper of this size in less than a month.
|
it doesn't require a full and careful examination to see that it is unpublishable.
It has the same vapid and unacceptable premise that Gary uses. Its English is poor:
| Quote | | The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The theory of intelligent design gives answers to largely unanswered questions, like the origin of first live. For the origin of first life a force is missing that drives polymerization[3]. Not only to largely unanswered biological and chemical questions an answer is given, even the fine-tuned universe could be possibly explained through an intelligent cause. |
| Quote | | Bit strings are not suited to examine them for preferences and avoidance because they consist of only two digits. There wasn't the resources to sustain large experiments with a lot participants like [2] |
Where I completely lost it was where they explained how they coded data taken from scenes in Star Trek: what they do is simply an ad hoc meaningless garble:
| Quote |
Additional marks that were looked for:
Short form Additionally observation
M1 open door, colour black/red
M2 weapon, „What's that?“
M3 humour, laughing
M4 fire
M5 water
M6 theft, try to get information (example: sensors)
M7 drink
M10 past
M11 unbelievable attainment
M12 temporary interruption
M13 long time
M14 short time, in a hurry, smoke, gas
Table 3: Additional marks that were looked for.
|
and
| Quote | | An example in words for 1x01: There are a lot appearances first including *P.Al, *P.Pi, *P.Wo and M1. All this can happen at E3 (table 4). Then the size and complexity of the USS Enterprise is commended. Starships count as P.Al, therefore a starship being commended for its size and complexity counts as P.Al+. P.Al+ is not part of E3, but part of E9, therefore E9 is triggered. |
This is actually a bit like Gary "explaining" how his program works. Regardless, how is something like that going to yield anything rational?
They present some Poisson calculations, but I gave up trying to figure out what they were trying to do with them, because of sentences like
| Quote | | and σE2 = 0 as variance for the random error because a not changing data source is used that allows to rate it arbitrary often. |
It seems to be something like an exercise in numerology.
As with Gary's rubbish, it is not the responsibility of others to wade through this sort of stuff to see if there is maybe a diamond somewhere under all the pig manure. |
You can read the first few paragraphs of some things and know that they're crap. I understand that. My point with Gary is that he took someone else's crap, gave it a cursory scan and made his decision, which is exactly the same thing he criticizes others for doing with his "theory." It's just blatant hypocrisy on his part.
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
