Nazaroo

This is a remarkable dance.

All the criticism of Willker in this thread was based upon his Textual Commentary on John 8:1-11 naturally. It was his application of PCA to the problem of grouping the MSS containing the Pericope de Adultera that was the issue.

An article that you apparently haven't read, and don't care about. Which begs the question: What are you defending about Willker, and why?



Well, its hard to see what your point is, since you have no interest in Willker's commentary.

Well, this strains credibility on several levels. It is Willker's application of PCA to NT textual criticism that is under attack. This obviously involves his views on how it should be applied, and its significance.


It will be interesting to see if you will indeed defend his study, since I am going to tear it to shreds in a moment, as an impediment to further progress of science.

gregor

Julian,
Ask your pal about things like evolution denial, a 6.000 year-old universe, and the capacities of the ark and then decide whether continued discussions are worthwhile.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

From earlier we had these quotes from Willker

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

"The group that comes nearest to the reconstructed autograph (NA)"

And in the study itself.

http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/pub/Analysis-PCA.html
"This image gives the intriguing (but of course wrong) impression as if it visualizes the stream of MSS transmission over time and that the autograph can be found somewhere left from B."

It is easy to see that the Wieland Willker analysis can highlight which groups are more or less Alexandrian. Or more or less than his claimed "reconstructed autograph". I did something similar with the Peshitta in counting 180 variants to see if they were more Byzantine or Alexandrian, without the groups and graphs.

Nazaroo, why the effort to disassemble his methodology ? There is no apparent or claimed relevance in determining the autograph anyway.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Nazaroo

This is a cheap shot. "your pal" we presume means debating opponent, i.e., me.

I don't believe in a 6,000 year old universe. As a physicist I know that is absurd.

I am not interested in 'capacities of the ark', presumably a reference to a children's story in Genesis.

Evolution 'denial' is not something I spend alot of time on either.

I'm waiting for a convincing Evolution 'demonstration' before I decide to waste my valuable time engaging in an Evolution 'denial'. When you think you have a scientific case that can stand up to a physicist's critique, call me. But don't bother if you're not a physicist like me. You won't understand the discussion.

Nazaroo

Nazaroo

Yes, seems like overkill. But there is a point.

PCA is a 'fad' technique. Something that a lot of 'soft/social science' fields are turning to right now, to give their flakey garbage more 'scientific credibility'.

The problem is, most of the 'experts' in these fields, (like those of textual criticism), are definitely not mathematicians, let alone statistical experts. (You have to be competant in statistical mathematics by the way, to be a physicist.)

What happens is, shoddily designed 'experiments' are sprinkled with 'powerful techniques', and the result is crap. Unfortunately, it is crap with a sparkle, and has all the appearance of a scientific discovery. There is a danger that the NEW crapology may fool 80% of its target audience 80% of the time. Which is bad.

I am hoping to nip this in the bud for the field of Textual Criticism, so that a lot of people will avoid future embarrassment.

But more importantly, I am hoping to guide textual critics into using good experimental design, good methodology, and appropriate technique in a scientific way, so that the results will be worth something, and not just more crapology.

jgibson000

And you are doing this how exactly?

Have you published papers in the professional journals that textual critics read? Have you sent manuscripts to academic publishing houses? Have you presented -- or ever offered to present anything -- in the TC sessions at the local and national SBLs or CBQs? Have you written directly to the textual critics whose work you think is lacking in "good experimental design, good methodology, and appropriate technique"?

If you haven't, do you ever intend to do any of these things? Or will you continue to do what you've always done -- talked big behind the safety of a ridiculous pseudonym on obscure websites and minimally read discussion lists?

JG

Julian

Hey, now! Other than this little snippet, I seem to find your comments appropriate this time.

Julian

P.S. I wonder how one becomes a physicist without understanding PCA and basic statistics.

jgibson000

Re: discussion lists, I was primarily referring to the execrable TC-Alternate List which "Nazaroo" ("we have uploaded"...") runs under yet another pseudonym.

Or earns a degree and finds employment as a physicist in any reputable establishment. Has anyone ever established that "Nazaroo" holds a degree of any kind in Physics and/or that he works as a physicist?

Jeffrey

Steven Avery

Hmmm.. I wonder if the negative review by Jeffrey Gibson of TC-Alternate might be tinged a bit by the fact that he was booted off the list ? Anyway, folks can find the list on Yahoogroups and review the discussions and then come to more informed personal decisions about the nature and quality and moderation of the list.

Anyway, Jeffrey, do you have any solid evidence that Nazaroo runs the TC-Alternate list, as claimed ? Perhaps he does, however my understanding is that Mr. Scrivener owns that list and they specifically assert being different people (and that could probably be affirmed by stylistic analysis, ie. reading their posts). And also the moderation was in some sense recently transferred or shared with James Snapp, who has the excellent study on the ending of Mark.

Either way, the list stands on its own account, and has some excellent discussion. (No, I am not a major poster on the list, although I have gotten involved in this and that.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Nazaroo

It was chosen to be annoying. Your response is gratifying.


Here we go with the self-contradictory and confused notions of 'courage' and 'chivalry'. And yet, I have to ask...

How brave are you? Are you a cop? A fireman? Perhaps you've intervened in a 7-11 robbery recently, or thwarted a gun-wielding cocaine addict.

Please let us know: I'm all ears on this one.


Here's a funny one. Threads I start, like this one, get 2,500 hits/week. What do threads that you start get?

You don't. That's why I'm a physicist, and you're not.

Mr. Scrivener (Ben Davidson) will be pleased by your confusion. I have an IQ of 147, while he only has an IQ of 132.

You'll find that most good physicists are rather anonymous, especially those who work in military, industrial, or corporate fields where they are pushing the envelope of cutting edge research. Contractual obligations require descretion.

Not like armchair academia in the social sciences.