Freethought & Rationalism Archive

l-bow · 10-11-2002, 12:17 PM

Okay. I admit it. I was trolling. But look at this response to Glenn Morton critique of Sean Pitman's post. Sounds like whining, doesn't it?

<a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:sds%40mp3.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ao0bbv%248de%241%40slb2.atl.mindspring.net& rnum=3" target="_blank">link to post</a>

l-bow · 10-12-2002, 01:31 AM

sds tries to argue that using a few tree rings or even one tree ring to match trees is still a valid technique. What would you say to him?

l-bow · 10-12-2002, 01:38 AM

This is the part in question:

You seem to think my belief that a short ring sequence can be statistically
significant means I don't understand statistics (and you feel the need to
subtly criticize all "anti-evolutionists" in this regard). But you are
wrong, because the mere diminutive number of rings is not what renders the
data insignificant, statistically. It must also be the nature of the
similarity of the samples. Any informed person, such as yourself, would
willing agree that if the degree of similarity between those short samples
is great enough (they are unique enough), then the conclusions that Arct
seems to be touting would be valid. But you've argued that I must not
understand statistics (or that I must not "believe" statistics) simply on
the basis of my stating that similarities between samples, even if they are
short, is "at least an attention grabber". If the roles were reversed, I
like to think that I would have said to you something like "yes, it *is* an
attention grabber, and when one's attention is focused closely on the
samples, he sees that the similarities just aren't sufficiently unique to be
statistically significant" instead of making derogatory comments about
"anti-evolutionists" and their understanding of statistics

10-11-2002, 12:17 PM	#1
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	A creationist (sds) responds to Glenn Morton Okay. I admit it. I was trolling. But look at this response to Glenn Morton critique of Sean Pitman's post. Sounds like whining, doesn't it? <a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:sds%40mp3.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ao0bbv%248de%241%40slb2.atl.mindspring.net& rnum=3" target="_blank">link to post</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-12-2002, 01:31 AM	#2
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	sds tries to argue that using a few tree rings or even one tree ring to match trees is still a valid technique. What would you say to him?

10-12-2002, 01:38 AM	#3
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	This is the part in question: You seem to think my belief that a short ring sequence can be statistically significant means I don't understand statistics (and you feel the need to subtly criticize all "anti-evolutionists" in this regard). But you are wrong, because the mere diminutive number of rings is not what renders the data insignificant, statistically. It must also be the nature of the similarity of the samples. Any informed person, such as yourself, would willing agree that if the degree of similarity between those short samples is great enough (they are unique enough), then the conclusions that Arct seems to be touting would be valid. But you've argued that I must not understand statistics (or that I must not "believe" statistics) simply on the basis of my stating that similarities between samples, even if they are short, is "at least an attention grabber". If the roles were reversed, I like to think that I would have said to you something like "yes, it is an attention grabber, and when one's attention is focused closely on the samples, he sees that the similarities just aren't sufficiently unique to be statistically significant" instead of making derogatory comments about "anti-evolutionists" and their understanding of statistics

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.