Something rotten in Denmark?

Good grief. Are suggesting that Dembski might be a liar or a fool?

No, simply a mathematician who's a little vague on basic stat.

Dembski does have a degree in mathematics doesn't he?

Even if he didn't know the particulars, the numbers should have tipped him off.

Another factor is that it could be that Americans search under more varied terms, like "Dembski", "creationism", and "Dover" for information regarding ID. In all probability, we know more of the terms associated with ID than do Europeans and Australians, thus might not use "intelligent design" as often when searching.

Perhaps more importantly, he doesn't know how many outside of the US are searching for "intelligent design" to find out how so many Americans can be so stupid. I expect the Danes mostly just laugh at him.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

What a beautiful story!

Buffalo Bill lives up to his name, and then he gets slapped around by someone that really DOES know science and what they are talking about. It doesn't get much better than this early on a Friday.
Thanks Andrea!

ps- When can we expect the correction from Dr Buffalo and his minion DaveScott?
And when does DaveScott get promoted from minion to lackey?

I've got a copy before it erm, 'disappears'.

Good grief. Are suggesting that Dembski might be a liar or a fool?

Can you petition to have someone's PhD Un-granted?

Seriously, I wonder if what we have here is a whiff of desperation. Not only is he deceptive or not paying attention (take your pick), but this is the same man who things attention Ann Coulter will bring to ID will be beneficial to ID. ID has had many setbacks, and this is just grasping at straws now.

As I put it on my blog, "Intelligent Design jumps multiple sharks, speeds into the stratosphere yelling 'Yee-ha', and vanishes in a flash of light and a little 'ting' noise"

He should recognize the word 'normalized'. It's right there on the top of the graph. But, more seriously, anyone who looks at that graph, knowing the relative population sizes of these countries, and doesn't realize instantly the data must be per capita or normalized in some equivalent way, is simply not doing the very basic input processing any scientist does when he/she looks at data.

If an undergraduate chemistry student made this sort of mistake, it would cause me to question if they were cut out for a scientific career.

HEY, AS PREDICTED IT DISSAPEARED!

Do you want the copy?

Based on previous threads over there, I think we can expect that he may print an update to the thread saying he was wrong, then several posters commending him on how noble he is for admitting it, which makes him so much better than the nasties on the other side. Sound about right? No one will question his motives, method, or lack of judgement...just a big ol pat on the back for being a good sport.

No, Dembski is quite right. International support for ID is growing....among fundamentalist Jews, for example. Of course, it's still nothing at all to do with religion! ;-)

Did anyone read Shermer's column in the latest issue of Scientific American? He cited MRI studies which showed that statements like these don't cause ANY activity in the brain centers devoted to analytical thinking. They excite the emotional nodes, and the satisfaction nodes. Dembski saw what he wanted to see.

It must suck to be Dembski...

Hi,
nice stuff,y ou should compare ID with creationism and evolution:

url href="http://www.google.com/trends?q=creationism%2C+evolution%2C+intelligent+design&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all"

Obviously, the peaks relate to news coverage.

Apparently Dembski took a few lessons in propaganda manufacture in exchange for helping a certain harpy with her latest screed.

Hey, do you think they might hook up and start popping out young 'uns? What do you get when you cross a Coulter and a Dembski, and will the hybrid be as sterile as the ideologies they represent individually?

C'mon people. He knows very well that he is deceaving people. You gotta realize, that his post is aimed at your average American God-fearing Joe/Jane (~80% US population), who will gobble it up and pray for more.

Rich - The article is still up. 4 sycophants have commented at this time, telling Buffalo Bill how great he and ID are... I am sure you are just prescient though, and it is only a matter of time before the article DOES go away

I dont find their ideologies sterile. They're highly infectious.

Increasing numbers of searches for "intelligent design" do not indicate increasing acceptance of the theology. I search "intelligent design" everyday just to keep track of the latest news on the net. I am however vehemently against ID.

The counting methods and results aside, I (in the U.S.) do a google "news" search everyday on "intelligent design" to stay abreast of any entertaining news.

My "interest" is that of ridicule and staying informed - hardly an ID constructive interest. Point - "interest" runs both ways.

Dave

The fecal matter is about to hit the winnowing roters... a UD poster just pointed out the "normalizing" error made and asked Dr D if his post was correct....

This is like watching a train wreck... Ouch! That's gotta leave a mark...

Increasing numbers of searches for "intelligent design" do not indicate increasing acceptance of the theology. I search "intelligent design" everyday just to keep track of the latest news on the net. I am however vehemently against ID.

Northern Ireland surely must feature as one of the top regions for interest in ID:

http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/news/article.html?uid=1218

And it's not even the parents or boards of governors pushing for it here. It's actually the pupils themselves !

This is like watching a train wreck... Ouch! That's gotta leave a mark...

And heck, even if we were going to allow Google Trend results to stand in the place of actual arguments, it still doesn't look good for ID. Couldn't even imagine applying Dembski's ignorance of normalization to these results...

a UD poster just pointed out the "normalizing" error made and asked Dr D if his post was correct

Try Google Trends: Intelligent design vs FSM to see who is coming on strong...

Ramen

(Googling a thing) = (Support of said thing)

Comment #106104 Posted by Peter Henderson on June 16, 2006 02:19 PM (e) Northern Ireland surely must feature as one of the top regions for interest in ID: http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/news/artic... And it's not even the parents or boards of governors pushing for it here. It's actually the pupils themselves !

I'd imagine that by this time tomorrow, the post will have either be vanished, or it will have a second one alongside it, mocking those who failed to get the joke

There is nothing funnier than seeing Dembski's pants pulled down (by evilutionists nonetheless) in an area where he should be an expert (numbers).

Thanks, BillTard, for being such a complete dunce and showing the world once again how clueless you are when it comes to numbers, math and (computer) science!

Chris

Dembski does have a degree in mathematics doesn't he?

This is not so surprising. Dembski has too much time on his hands but doesn't spend it carefully.

Haha, Bill just posted two longish posts... Push it down, Bill.

No "continued below.." type summary Bill? Ashamed of something?

If it isn't a boneheaded mistake like this, it's credulously posting an obvious urban legend and swearing it's true. Seems WD/DS make at least one really epic, Cecil B. DeMille blunder per week.

Ironic that it's PT and ATBC who end up pointing out his goofs to him.

And to think that UD is one of the 'most prestigious' ID sites out there. Oy.

LOL it seems like just yesterday, Dembski was whining that his interactions with Panda's Thumb leave him feeling bad.

In Dembski's desperate attempt to move the thread down he posts even more outlandish nonsense - if that were possible. Now he uses a Fox News Headline "Missing Link in Bird Evolution Found" to make that case that if the missing link has only just been found then why has he been "assured for years" that the fossil record of bird evolution has solved the enigma." So Fox News is now the definitive authority on what's what? Interesting that he watches Fox and "reads" Coulter though.

This guy is heading for some sort significant psychological event if he's not careful; in recent times we've had the Pianka farce, PvM's supposed quote-mining which exposed Dembski as a serial recycler of his own stuff and now his failure to understand what normalization is. As if that were not enough this is now followed by him mining Fox News for headlines that can be erected as straw men to disprove evolution which, in another post, he states is "demonstrably false" with, of course, no demonstration. PhD or not it's not surprising that he finds Coulter a good read.

It's also hardly surprising that he no longer gets invited to the Templeton events. As for the progeny that Dembski and Coulter would spawn, why am I drawn to the image of the nascent Setebo with a spike through it's brain In Dan Simmons' Ilium?

What's the old adage? "Even relentlessly humiliating press is good press"?

In Dembski's desperate attempt to move the thread down he posts even more outlandish nonsense - if that were possible. Now he uses a Fox News Headline "Missing Link in Bird Evolution Found" to make that case that if the missing link has only just been found then why has he been "assured for years" that the fossil record of bird evolution has solved the enigma." So Fox News is now the definitive authority on what's what? Interesting that he watches Fox and "reads" Coulter though.

RBH,

I stand corrected - I should have known that it wasn't Bill himself in that the post in question started: "I'm suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonace."

Apologies to Bill Dembski and charge retracted.

Bob

The continuing adventures of BillDumb, the mathematician who can't count. Comedy listings are stated below...

It must be pretty frustrating been an IDiot right now.

*g*

[been]

Sorry, I meant 'being'.

Embarrassed, but not as much as D_mbski.
(shrug)

Well Dembski admitted that any errors regarding evolution that appeared in conservative mediawhore Ann Coulter's book were his. As that volume abounds with errors, we have additional evidence that Dembski knows as much about evolution as does a bag of goose feathers.

Measure-theoretic probability has very little to do with practical statistics. Bill Dembski's advisor at Chicago was Patrick Billingsley, a probabilist. (Billingsley's books are classics and I have them in my personal library.)

But surely he had a first or second year stats class, no?

Measure-theoretic probability has very little to do with practical statistics. Bill Dembski's advisor at Chicago was Patrick Billingsley, a probabilist. (Billingsley's books are classics and I have them in my personal library.)

M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983

But surely he had a first or second year stats class, no?

From William A. Dembski's online CV:M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983

LOL Go over to GM/BM and watch R O'B try to argue with MarkCC. Robert's argument? What else? "You're not qualified blah blah blah..."

They didn't name a stupidity prize after him for nothing.

Well Dembski admitted that any errors regarding evolution that appeared in conservative mediawhore Ann Coulter's book were his. As that volume abounds with errors, we have additional evidence that Dembski knows as much about evolution as does a bag of goose feathers.

Yeah, I mean obviously he knows what normalization is, advanced high schoolers know what normalization is. He was just careless and didn't see that a half-inch above the data was the word normalization with a link explaining how google normalizes the data. He was sloppy, and he threw it up on the webpage, and PT embarrasses him yet again.

LOL Go over to GM/BM and watch R O'B try to argue with MarkCC. Robert's argument? What else? "You're not qualified blah blah blah..."

I think Robert's trying to win the coveted Robert O'Brien Trophy. No chance, Rob, with competition like Gil, Davetard, Sal, Barry...

Good effort though.

Crap, what am I doing talking with R O'B? Chelsea Handler's on.

I think Robert's trying to win the coveted Robert O'Brien Trophy. No chance, Rob, with competition like Gil, Davetard, Sal, Barry... Good effort though.

True enough. But that says nothing about the curriculum behind the degree. I know of at least one university where you can get an M.A. in (mathematical) statistics without taking any applied statistics courses.

No, it ain't physics, because if it were, normalization would be a given. I recall normalizing things in PY 203 (intro to modern), PY 341 (thermo), PY 401 (quantum 1), PY 402 (quantum 2), and Stat 371 (intro to prob and stat).

So, are you saying that we don't know that any of William A. Dembski's degrees taught him anything?

I recall normalizing things in PY 203 (intro to modern), PY 341 (thermo), PY 401 (quantum 1), PY 402 (quantum 2), and Stat 371 (intro to prob and stat).

My stat mech is from Kerson Huang 2nd edition, but I didn't include that because they only let me audit that class as as undergrad, being how it was a 700 level. Flipping through the book, the first normalized term is on page 65. Something to do with the Gibbsian ensemble.

I think there was also some normalization terms in fourier transforms. Can't remember. it's been a few years. If so, that's a couple more classes.

The approach I take follows the common statistical practice (popularized by Ronald Fisher) of rejecting a chance hypothesis if a sample appears in a prespecified rejection region. What my complexity-specification criterion does is extend this statistical practice in two ways: First, it generalizes the types of rejections regions by which chance is eliminated, namely, to what I call "specifications." Second, it allows for the elimination of all relevant chance hypotheses for an event, rather than just a single one. This dual extension is entirely consistent with the approach to hypothesis testing most widely employed in the applied statistics literature, and certainly the first one taught in any introductory statistics course. (Source)

LOL pretty sweet, Wes.

Dembski certainly claims competence in applied statistics: The approach I take follows the common statistical practice (popularized by Ronald Fisher) of rejecting a chance hypothesis if a sample appears in a prespecified rejection region. What my complexity-specification criterion does is extend this statistical practice in two ways: First, it generalizes the types of rejections regions by which chance is eliminated, namely, to what I call "specifications." Second, it allows for the elimination of all relevant chance hypotheses for an event, rather than just a single one. This dual extension is entirely consistent with the approach to hypothesis testing most widely employed in the applied statistics literature, and certainly the first one taught in any introductory statistics course.

My stat mech is from Kerson Huang 2nd edition, but I didn't include that because they only let me audit that class as as undergrad, being how it was a 700 level. Flipping through the book, the first normalized term is on page 65. Something to do with the Gibbsian ensemble.

— steve s

It's a very unorthodox approach. But NCSU is known for unorthodox approach. Switching all the intro physics classes to their Matter and Interactions textbook, where absolutely everything begins with conservation of momentum, was a weird approach, but one which is surprisingly successful.

Well if you like stupidity, here's stupidity squared. Over on Free Republic this morning, a poster with the handle Sir Linksalot plagiarized Dembski's idiotic post, mistake and all.

Creationists. There's just no underestimating them.

Speaking of statistics, the last comment on Dembski's bad statistics thread was around 2 pm. He put the thread up about 24 hrs ago, and there were 7 comments, the last one, around 2 pm, mentioning that over at Panda's Thumb his error is explained. Nothing since then. Maybe for fun someone can calculate, with p values and everything, the likelihood that nobody's wanted to comment on that thread in 10 hrs, vs the hypothesis that commenters have been prevented from doing so.

I just realised I posted a bad link.

Here's the link to where Dembski's 'renormalization' was plagiarized.

wow. look at that. Dembski wasn't just c&p'd, the person reformulated the content to appear as his own, botched normalization and everything.

Ah, freepers.

LOL go read the comment sections at that link. People explain the error. and someone points out, well, Sir Linksalot could be Dumbski.

We all know he's not averse to using sock puppets after that whole Amazon debacle, after all.

The whole thing makes me sad. Because the level of humiliation this year might be enough to make Dembski shut down UD. And given the amount of entertainment that provides me, I'd really miss it.

given that Denmark has only a quarter of the population of Australia, Danes must be searching for ID >20 times more than Americans. International interest in ID is growing.

In comment 106266 Lenny Flank asked: why won't Dembski move to Denmark where supposedly the interest to ID is so much larger than in the US? Lenny, the answer to this question is well known: some time ago Dembski went to Denmark and gave a presentation to the department of mathematics at a Danish Technical University. The result? As one of the professors there reported (it was on PT), they will never invite him again. On the other hand, he is always welcome to speak at Baptist churches in Texas, and at that great center of science, Biola university.

But hey, international interest in ID is growing by leaps and bounds, right? So now they LOVE Bill there. LOVE him. Welcome him back in a heartbeat.

Right . . . . .?

(snicker) (giggle)

Although I would hate to see this happen, mainly because of all the young people who would continue to be indoctrinated into a neo-Darwinian view of biological origins, this would hardly spell the end of ID. For one thing, ID is rapidly going international and crossing metaphysical and theological boundaries. The idea that ID is purely an "American thing" can no longer be sustained. Interest is growing internationally and it will continue to grow regardless of the outcome of the trial. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 17, 2006 10:14 AM (e) It should also be pointed out that Dembski, uh, "predicted" that ID would grow internationally --- as part of his pre-ruling rationalizations if ID lost in Dover:...

Well if you like stupidity, here's stupidity squared. Over on Free Republic this morning, a poster with the handle Sir Linksalot plagiarized Dembski's idiotic post, mistake and all.

A Steve said:

Because the level of humiliation this year might be enough to make Dembski shut down UD. And given the amount of entertainment that provides me, I'd really miss it.

Careful for what you ask for there;
He could be the sort of shady character that would bottle said powder and offer it for sale outside the HS gymnasium on quiz night.

Dembski, the mathematician who can't do things in a normalised fashion.

ID champions the method of "poof", but now the question is when it will be "unpoofed".

Robert says in Comment #106218:

"Assigning a prior probability of .5 to an event and its complement, respectively, when the probability of the event of interest is unknown is a conservative approach. (Of course, that prior should be updated with relevant information.)"

I think the nub is that lacking observations to improve this Bayesian reasoning yoy haven't gained any information on the prior. It remains the choosen default. And are Bayesians allowed to use the method without any means of updating the prior?

Then you have Mark's criticism in another comment:
"If you want to do Bayesian probability, you need to be careful to make sure than your events are independent when you assert that they're independent; that they're atomic when you assert that they're atomic; and that you actually use all of the knowledge available to you to to assess the probability of each event instead of just inserting null hypotheses whenever it's easier.

Swinburne didn't do any of that."

Robert says in Comment #106232:

"Based on the citation you provided, I would situate Bill's concept within the realm of mathematical statistics."

From the same citation I would situate Dembski's use within the application of statistics on the
particular problem he treats. Wesley do too. You have the statistics against you. :-)

ID champions the method of "poof", but now the question is when it will be "unpoofed".

Deleting the post won't work, they've gotten burned on that before. I thought they'd do a little manipulation and try some different evidence for the claim that ID interest is increasing. But from the looks of how it's playing out over there, the M.O. seems to be, move on to new posts, post a bunch of stuff, pretend the Google Trends thing never happened.

When are all you god denying libruls going to wake up?
Arden said:

When he[Drotsky] screws up in grand fashion, his M.O. seems to be to snarl that even tho he got all his facts wrong and all his evidence is bogus, his conclusions are still somehow all correct, and you liberals still suck. So there.

DON'T U REALIZE!! WE ARE GODS CHOSEN VOICE HERE IN JERUSALEM!! Go to hell!!

The episode definitely goes in the upcoming

Uncommonly Dense: Exclusive Fan Edition

The problem with burrying embarassing postings by adding new postings is that in their haste to do so, they end up posting even more embarassing postings. Dembski has been quite active lately in 'countering' objections to ID, only to show how ID fits quite nicely the objections raised...
Funny how UcD is starting to sound more and more like a theological website, taking pride in Coulter. What surprises me is how poorly argued Coulter's arguments really are, recycling much of the old rethoric. If Dembski actually was involved in contributing in any manner to this book then I am appalled by the scientific vacuity of the book. And then, just when I have reached the conclusion that it must have been all Ann's fault, Bill posts a comment which shows how our mathematician seems to be confused about normalization.
What is one to think faced with this?
That Dembski made a correct decision in returning to his 'true love': apologetics?

What many critics have already speculated about seems to be actually correct. ID has since long abandoned any hopes to become scientifically relevant and instead is fighting a religious and political fight.

While the old 'id' would take great pride in pointing out how Simon Conway Morris' work supported ID, the new ID is pointing out how theologically wrong Morris really is.

So why is Bill still here? Why hasn't he packed up and moved to Denmark, to establish a Polanyi Center in Copenhagen, where the real ID action is? Or are Danish souls simply less valuable to Bill than American souls are ... ?"

— Rev. Dr. Lenny Frank

Something to keep in mind is that Dembski was trying to normalize the data by dividing it by population, just that the data was already normalized. Saying that he does not know what normalization means is unfair considering his actions. However, his post does show that he is sloppy in performing analysis.

So why is Bill still here? Why hasn't he packed up and moved to Denmark, to establish a Polanyi Center in Copenhagen, where the real ID action is?

— ...

"Northern Ireland surely must feature as one of the top regions for interest in ID:
"

Nothing that The Land That Time Forgot does surprises me. When Northern Ireland realises that the 17th century has ended - that would be news.

You know, it seems like only yesterday, Robert O'Brien was in here talking about how unqualified we were to judge Dembski's math.

Us none Yanks do search for ID on google mainly to find out what the fruit loops god bothers are up to. The ID "debate" last five seconds here in Oz. Not even the only religious group in parliament would touch it. I'm sorry to say but when stuff like this is trotted out most of us shake our heads and say "only in America".

You know, it seems like only yesterday, Robert O'Brien was in here talking about how unqualified we were to judge Dembski's math.

— steve s

steve says:
"Deleting the post won't work, they've gotten burned on that before."

I was engaging in wistful thinking of ID going altogether in a "poof" event. But your take was hitting closer to home.

Well, they have actually done your poof idea before.

DaveScot Steps In It Again, Or...The Case of Missing Post 744

Now what they do after a major bone-up is, they quickly post a bunch of new items, pushing the screwup down the page, and either officially or unofficially close commenting on that thread.

Which happens pretty frequently if you believe, as Robert O'Brien does, that none of Dembski's bloggers are qualified to discuss his arguments. That would explain all the errors they make.

Robert says:

"I still contend there is no one here who is really qualified to criticize arguments involving measure-theoretic probability or mathematical statistics."

That sounds funny coming from a grad student considering the numerous scientists visiting here. And considering you can't answer Mark's criticism. Are you qualified to hold your contention?

What do you ask for? Measure theory and sigma algebras, check. Probability theory, check. Statistical theory, check. Stochastic processes, check. Numerous real life applications of statistics, check. Statistical physics, check. Quantum statistics, rudimentary. Bayesian beliefs, rudimentary.

Of course, I don't pretend to be good at these things since I don't do them for a living. I do think I'm qualified to criticize, though, however naive and errorprone it will be. And I think you need to update your Bayesian belief regarding Panda's Thumb visitors.

Which happens pretty frequently if you believe, as Robert O'Brien does, that none of Dembski's bloggers are qualified to discuss his arguments. That would explain all the errors they make.

— steve s

Have you ever seen anyone comment on Dembski's work whom you consider qualified?

And considering you can't answer Mark's criticism.

— Dude with umlauts

And I think you need to update your Bayesian belief regarding Panda's Thumb visitors

— Dude with umlauts

Have you ever seen anyone comment on Dembski's work whom you consider qualified?

Wolpert, certainly. And Bill conceded that Shallizi dude was also qualified. I guess I am a probability and statistics snob. :-)

Anybody you consider qualified who says Dembski is right? Because both those guys say he's very wrong.

I still contend there is no one here who is really qualified to criticize arguments involving measure-theoretic probability or mathematical statistics.

— Robert O'Brien

Even when said arguments contain errors having nothing to do with either?

Most likely. However, I know of a probabilist (who is quite good) who did not know what a histogram is (Or so I was told by another student.)

I still contend there is no one here who is really qualified to criticize arguments involving measure-theoretic probability or mathematical statistics.

— Robert O'Brien

William, R O'B never seems to do that. He doesn't argue that Dembsk is right, he doesn't argue that the critics are wrong, he asserts the tiny point that some of Dembski's critics don't have adequate credentials.

I consider it a cousin of 'damning with faint praise'.

I do hope that those of you who are beginning to "connect the dots" and are beginning to reveal the picture of a rising ring-wing, fascist theocracy will actually go out and vote this time!

William, R O'B never seems to do that. He doesn't argue that Dembsk is right, he doesn't argue that the critics are wrong, he asserts the tiny point that some of Dembski's critics don't have adequate credentials.

— steve s

A case could be made that the critics' wrongness is a necessary implication, but IIRC, he avoids explicitly saying that, because he'd have to start arguing the math.

In any case, he's not a dangerous opponent, as far as I have seen, he just pops up occasionally somewhere, says "You're not qualified to criticise Dembski", and nobody buys it.

William wrote

There are several PT readers who are completely, totally qualified. I, for one, have spent much of my career as an applied mathematician, including doing cryptography for NSA and rocket science for NASA, and probability and statistics have been central to these and other parts of my career. The mathematical content of Dembski's ID work is blatant gibberish. Deal with it.

oH FOR GOD'S sake don't spoil it William!
We were just warming up.

(smirk)

William calmly lies down at the end of the course waiting for the rest to catch up.

"What kept you" he slyly said. As the stragglers heaved over the line.

"Didn't you see the manic preacher on the hill" William was asked by a newby.

"You must be dreaming" was the reply.

Robert says:

""And considering you can't answer Mark's criticism."

Which one?"

All of them.

The last thing he said before you stopped answering was "Swinburne is welcome to his own belief of what form a deity/deities take in his belief. But if he wants to make a probabilistic argument, and treat the statement of the existence of *his* god as an event, then he can't arbitrarily exclude other possibilities, and pretend that the existence of his god is an atomic statement, whereas any consideration of other religion's deities are necessarily not atomic. (Which is what is implied by "Probability his god exists = .5, sum of probabilities of all other propositions concerning existence or non-existence of other deities =.5")"

If you want to answer this, perhaps you should do that on his thread.

On another note, I think my last comment was silly and stupid. My credentials are neither here nor there, and my argumentation was in error. As Anton said, there was not need of much of what you asked for. And it is easy to see that Swinburne is doing a crappy argument anyway. But if you ask for credentials to actually do math independently I don't have any. (Actually, I have enough competence so I've once made an alternative derivation of linear fitting formulas, since I saw the possibility and explored it for fun IIRC, and once on derivatives for systems of implicit functions for looking at stability that supported my research at the time since it was fairly easy to see the way to the solution. Alas, nothing public. But it still tickles my ego. And maybe it makes me not entirely toothless on the subject. :-)

So I do think I have enough qualifications to discuss with you and criticise Swinburne. I can also criticise Dembski with my physics credentials, since he is inadept of applying math to model the physical world which is easy to see without analysing all the details.

Whether my criticism is good enough is contingent of course. But I'm glad that William steps in as a real applied mathematician, to refute your own silly comment all the way.

Excerpt from text above: "However, you will also see a link, right next to the "Top regions" label that says "normalized"."

Remember Dembski appeals to the non-thinking public who think he is normal. What would they know about normalization, intellectual or mathematical?

Ouch. Was that unkind? sorry, Mom.

Hi

Just because you search "Intelligent Design" on google does not mean that you are a follower of the movement.

Be Well

And I know of an IDiot who doesn't know what the word "normalize" means. That you know someone else who is ignorant of something is irrelevant.

There are several PT readers who are completely, totally qualified. I, for one, have spent much of my career as an applied mathematician, including doing cryptography for NSA and rocket science for NASA, and probability and statistics have been central to these and other parts of my career. The mathematical content of Dembski's ID work is blatant gibberish. Deal with it.

Deal with it.

And I know of an IDiot who doesn't know what the word "normalize" means. That you know someone else who is ignorant of something is irrelevant

1. The term "IDiot" is insipid. You may get the impression that it is clever within your intellectually-inbred clique but I assure you it is not.

2. So what?

Point 2 sorta kinda totally undermines Point 1.

I am only interested in the opinions of probabilists when it comes to probability and statisticians when it comes to statistics. Deal with it.

I studied probability for 3 years as both an undergrad at UCSB and a grad at Berkeley. you're simply wrong.

About what? By the way, I was also at UCSB.

look, obviously you never actually took a course in statistics at UCSB...

...or you would have learned that the majority of 1st year statistics IS probability...

...and a good portion of higher level statistics, simply can't proceed without a very good background in probability to begin with.

...so, you're wrong that an expert in statistics is irrelevant to judge Dembski's use of probability.

I still contend there is no one here who is really qualified to criticize arguments involving measure-theoretic probability or mathematical statistics.

How do you get "...[A]n expert in statistics is irrelevant to judge Dembski's use of probability" out of "I still contend there is no one here who is really qualified to criticize arguments involving measure-theoretic probability or mathematical statistics"?

Robert, I'm a little puzzled why you, uh, think anyone here should give a flying fig what you think?

Perhaps you could explain that for me . . . ?

Robert, I'm a little puzzled why you, uh, think anyone here should give a flying fig what you think? Perhaps you could explain that for me ... ?

How do you get "...[A]n expert in statistics is irrelevant to judge Dembski's use of probability" out of "I still contend there is no one here who is really qualified to criticize arguments involving measure-theoretic probability or mathematical statistics"?

It don't make no nevermind to me; people are free to take my posts or leave them as they see fit.