Baloo

Understood. But, in my opinion, you kind of reaped what you sowed:
1) you did not (and still do not) tell anyone what your educational background is, and
2) in two recent posts you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of significant digits usage/terminology.

I ask this non-rhetorically: If both of these statements are true, then why should I have assumed that you already had a scientific education?


If I naively presented the "Piltdown Man" fossil as evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, you would rightfully call me on it, and present evidence that the fossil was faked and therefore not valid. If I were an honest person in search of the truth, I would examine the evidence you presented, acknowledge that my "evidence" was suspect indeed, apologize for using it, publicly retract it, and move onto the next piece of evidence.

If I were a dishonest person, interested only in "winning" the debate using any means necessary, I would likely accuse you of attempting to derail the debate by dodging the main issues with complete nit-picks.

In your opening post of the Chromosome Challenge thread, you begin to address SciGirl's challenge with an attack on the usefulness of the phylogenetic tree (quick aside: a search on SG's challenge produces no hits for "phylogenetic", "phylo*", or "tree" - so a "red herring alert" already pops into mind). You attempted to argue that the phylogenetic tree was highly disputed within the scientific community and, apparently by extension, the related theory that man evolved from an apelike ancestor must also be in dispute (non-sequitor?). The evidence used to support your [potentially red herring, non-sequitor] argument was quotes from scientists.

Subsequently, many, many people methodically (not methodologically! ) demonstrated that each of those quotes was used out of context, making a strong case that it was not evidence that supported your arguments. Wether or not the quotes truly supported your case, you refused to acknowledge the challenges to your evidence beyond a flippant This response was exactly what I'd expect from a dishonest person, prompting <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001313&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

Your refusal to defend yourself has lent further credence to my suspicion that you are a dishonest person; caring about giving the appearance of "winning" the debate, and not caring about finding the truth.

The actual categorization is admittedly an ad hominem with respect to your actual arguments - a moot point given that it was the thorough refutation of your arguments in combination with your refusal to address said refutations that led to the categorization to begin with. However, the categorization IS NOT an ad hominem with respect to informing people what types of arguments and tactics they can expect should they engage you in debate.

I've alleged that you are a dishonest person willing to use fallacious argumentation and false evidence to advance your arguments. I consider this allegation, if true, to directly relate to any issue you subsequently attempt to debate.

I realize the rules for using significant digit is not new information to people with scientific educations. That wasn't my reason for posting it.

You used your misunderstanding of significant digits an argument against the validity of Scigirl's post. I addressed this argument of yours. And you are implying that by addressing the argument that you made, I am derailing the conversation from the main issue? Read this slowly: If a debate over a piece of evidence (or agrument) sidetracks the main issue, then the person who originally presented it as evidence (or an argument) is solely responsible for attempting to sidetrack the debate. I ask you, Vanderzyden, is the significant digit discussion pertinent to the main issue?

10^-34 J*s is the division of the energy of a photon and (fairly small) by its frequency (fairly large). When you divide a very small number by a very large number, you get an extraordinarily small number. My point is that it is misleading to guage the difficulty of obtaining a constant by the absolute scale of said constant, and attempts to do so bely a misunderstanding of scientific analysis of measurements. CIP: I define B to be a constant equal to my height squared divided by my weight. I get B = 3.5x10^-11 km^2/g. WOW, what a small constant, huh...

I think you're right - the author does a poor job of putting the fact that there is less than a 1x10^-41 probability that the p-tree established by comparing morphological features of animals and the p-tree established by comparing cytochrome c sequences of animals could have been as similar as they are by chance alone into perspective. On it's own, this is an astounding figure. I'd have to agree that his decision to try to compare a statistical likelihood to a physical constant is a rather weak part of the essay.

Now, let me ask you this. When you objected to the use of the author's comparison as an invalid argument for the legitimacy of phylogenetic trees, did anyone accuse you of side-tracking the argument? No. For the most part, people seem to be working out and posting counter arguments.

In my particular case, I read your objections, re-read the original comparison in its full context, and agreed that it made little sense.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]</p>

Philosoft

This has got to be a record for the longest thread directed at a particular individual wherein that individual has yet to address the OP.

Hello, Guinness?

Clutch

Well, I'd just like to take credit for posting the "pointless unresponsive troll alert" way back <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001305&p=10" target="_blank">here</a>.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Oh, I see. If I tell you that I am a scientist, then you won't consider me dishonest if you feel that I have a misunderstanding about basic statistical analysis. Alternatively, if I don't specifically indicate what my background is, and then describe something that is at first unclear and seemingly contradictory to my background, it is then reasonable for you label me a charlatan and a crook. Very interesting.

Consider if one of the Darwinists here posted something that isn't clear or is a mistake. Would you then accuse them of dishonesty? I hardly think so. But, because I take a position that is diametrically opposite to yours, you attempt to paint me black. While you have made some good points, your accusational stance is nearly identical to that of Doubting Didymus and allows me broad latitude in presuming what your motivation might be. Furthermore, it does not make appealing the prospect of future dialogue with you.


I think this says more about your expectations than my character, Baloo. It would be a good for you to cease this "nit-picking" and make substantial contributions that address the central points (like you do at the very end of your last post in this thread).

I care very little about "winning the debate", but very much about asking the tough questions in order to get at the truth. If you have read my response to Skeptical in this very thread, you will realize that very quickly. People who don't like to investigate don't have to participate.

Oh, perhaps you did not read this <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001389" target="_blank">other thread</a>, where I directly addressed such peripheral and unwarranted concerns.


You are correct: No one accused me of side-tracking in this particular case, but a good amount of digression has taken place to attempt to discredit me, whether focusing on supposed dishonesty (as you have) or my understanding of significant digits. On both accounts everyone here is incorrect.

Note: I could go into detail pointing out the apparent misunderstanding here regarding the distinction between precision and accuracy. But that is equally peripheral as the attention given to significant digits, and to do so would be yet another digression.

My main point WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT DIGITS, but rather the inappropriate comparison between well-established physical constants and speculative phylogenetic trees.

OK, so why didn't you make this clear in your first post here? Instead, you waste my time, yours, and those in this forum by making the bold (and ridiculous) claim of dishonesty. I am most certain that, if you are a professional, that you wouldn't do the same in front of your peers. Perhaps you would be careful making such strong accusations.

Make no mistake, Baloo. Don't assume that I harbor a delusion about winning debates here at Infidels. You are wrong on this point. Rather, I would like to see some people agree that its good to ask the hard questions, and follow the truth wherever it leads. I also enjoy helping people see that they don't know as much as their confidence indicates. Perhaps I will persuade some along the way, but my objective is not to become "king of the hill".

Also, I realize that one of the problems is that I am fighting a stereotype: many of you people think I'm just another one of those fundamentalist plebians. That's just fine, because some interesting effects will develop as we engage one another.

Lastly, I know full well that I frustrate people because I ask questions that no one here wants to ask. But the result of such irritation is often beneficial to those who have an interest in learning more about the world in which they live.


Vanderzyden

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

wade-w

Wrong. You frustrate people because you refuse to answer hard questions, and ignore requests to provide references to back up your assertions while demanding everyone else provide multiple refernces for every point they make.

Of course, you will once again ignore this.

Happy Wonderer

LOL! That is exactly why you are so entertaining, Van! Making mistakes is one thing, but making such basic howlers after blithly dismissing the theory of relativity is quite in another league. Dismissing 100 years of genetic research and then proving that you don't understand meiosis takes such chutzpah that I can only stand slack-jawed in awe. Bravo!

HW

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer because I can't spell as well as my cat can...]

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

I suggest that anyone who is interested should click on vanderzydens link above, and decide for themselves whether the issue was directly addressed.

I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out. Vander, none of your quotes apply to multicellular phylogenetics. All of them are talking about the phylogeny of domains (bacteria archea and eukarya). You have said that you don't 'see it that way', but I have made several replys that address each of them. Anyone who cares to look at the articles will find this to be true.

You are very upset at the allegations of libel that were made by several of us. Can't you see that this was really the only conclusion we could possibly have reached, seeing as your quotes were being used wrongly, and that you simply refused for nearly a month to address the issue?

Please, I am trying as hard as I can to be nice, but this is not a prehiperal issue. You are still using those quotes to attack multicellular phylogeny, so we must address the issue. So, address it. Read your articles again, and pay special attention to the areas that discuss the root of the tree, the level of 'domain', lateral gene transfer, chimerism and endosymbiosis. Keep in mind that none of these problems apply to multicellular organisms.

Also, I would dearly like for you to answer my questions about what you want to see to convince you that molecular phylogenetic trees are accurate.

Doubting Didymus

I sincerely hope that if I posted something that someone else here knew to be false (like piltdown man), then I would be called on it. Obviously, I would check it myself, and withdraw it if I found it to be erronious. If I thought I was right, I would make my case.

However, if I ignored the other person completely, suggest that their motives are somehow impure, and then keep using piltown man as evidence for common descent then I would fully expect to be accused of dishonesty.

Happy Wonderer

I was thinking about that last night, and I don't think it is as much of a stretch as it seems at first. Our knowledge of the value of physical constants depends also upon statistical methods. From run to run, no experiment is going to generate exactly the same value (if it does, check your equipment!) our confidence in the value (number of significant digits) is based upon the amount of agreement between experiments.

A long-winded but more accurate way to present the value of a physical constant would be "X has a value that we are %99 confident lies between .9988 and .9989" So the precision reported is indirectly related to the odds that the similarity of the experiment's values were by chance. With more experiments, usually one should be able to get more precision as you eliminate the possibility that the values you have seen so far happened to be high or low because of chance errors.

That is what is apparently so frustrating about G, the values are not converging when one performs different experiments to measure it. This might invalidate the idea that the errors are random (unbiased) which could indicate that something very interesting is going on. (Somebody gets a Nobel out of this, I'll wager...)

Ultimately, probability is all that there is -- which is exactly why scientists tend to use "weasel words."

HW

Nat

Why do you all give this kook the time of day? He has shown himelf to be clearly dishonest (his quote-mining out-of-context quotes and then defending them is evidence enough), and he is certainly unwilling to support any of his assertions. You are simply giving a fourm and your time to an obnoxious fool. It boggles the mind that you would be willing to tolerate this behavior.