Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 15:14 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:k7gnj2l9ohj1bl31bgnb8f9p6oevsrifch(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:46:30 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>> >>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>best >>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not >>>>something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a >>>>better description. >>>> >>>>Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to >>>>hell? >>> >>> Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the >>> accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation? >> >>I can't. >> >>> Strawman indeed. >> >>I agree. >> >>> Since the >>> time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have >>> progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've >>> read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact >>> pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead >>> in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe >>> through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors >>> to math and science. >>> >>> I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates >>> science, >> >>Well for a given value of "most." Also when it comes to science which is >>easy to reconcile with the religious teachings. When it comes to science >>which is not so easy to reconcile then things are different. >> >>> and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to >>> religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science. >> >>I agree. It would have been nicer if you had left most of the original >>context in place though. >> > > I get railed at for snipping, and railed at for not snipping. What's a > boy to do? :-)
From: Jamie on 22 Oct 2006 19:14 John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:46:30 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of(a)4ax.com... >> >>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake" >>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. >>>>> >>>>>No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>> >>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not >>>>something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a >>>>better description. >>>> >>>>Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell? >>> >>>Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the >>>accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation? >> >>I can't. >> >> >>>Strawman indeed. >> >>I agree. >> >> >>>Since the >>>time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have >>>progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've >>>read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact >>>pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead >>>in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe >>>through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors >>>to math and science. >>> >>>I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates >>>science, >> >>Well for a given value of "most." Also when it comes to science which is >>easy to reconcile with the religious teachings. When it comes to science >>which is not so easy to reconcile then things are different. >> >> >>>and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to >>>religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science. >> >>I agree. It would have been nicer if you had left most of the original >>context in place though. >> > > > I get railed at for snipping, and railed at for not snipping. What's a > boy to do? > > John > it's like coupons, you snip them all and only use the one's accepted! :) -- "I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2006 17:29 On Sun, 22 Oct 06 12:09:48 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data. >> >> >>....and because you have absolutely no background in or understanding of >>statistics, your "common sense" would be wrong. Please do learn whereof you >>speak, before you speak. The gaps in your knowledge in areas that are key >>to a lot of the points you insist are right, is phenomenal and appalling. >> >> >>> I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will >>> never show any statistical significance. >> >>Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of >>their data than *you* are, > >Nope. Not when it's for the BBC comsumption. > >> since your understanding of statistics is >>essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who reviewed >>the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad >>more knowledgeable of statistics than you are? > >This is not a question of ability of applying statistics. It is >a question of the agility of applying statistics. I am sceptic >of the agility. >> >> >>>>Yes, you do not know enough. Have you studied statistics, sampling, data >>>>analysis? >>> >>> Yes. A long time ago. >> >> >>Then you've clearly forgotten everything you learned. > >I can certainly open my stat books and yak a good game of >presenting the same data point as a dozen. In the olden >days, I'd just dup 12 cards. > > We were just talking about doing a polynomial curve fit to a dataset, where one of my guys decided that points on one end of the scale should be weighted more than points on the other end. He came up with a page of equations, full of matrices and things, to apply a weighting function on top of a polynomial regression. It hurt my head, so I suggested he just copy various multiples of different points back into the table, like 5x from the low end tapering up to 25x on the high end, the run the curve fit. You could do that with punch cards, too. But the problem turned out to be a lot simpler, almost linear, when we looked at it from another direction. And when we changed the specs on the product, it got even simpler. John
From: Michael A. Terrell on 22 Oct 2006 17:58 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > Kent State was not a riot. It turned into a riot when they started throwing stones at the soldiers on police. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Michael A. Terrell on 22 Oct 2006 18:22
John Fields wrote: > > On 22 Oct 2006 00:35:48 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> > wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > > > >> You're good at taking IQ tests. Doesn't actually > >> mean you're "smart." > > > > > > > >It does. > > > > > >Also you can count in: Endurance, Skill and Patience. (E.g. longer test > >than the IQ Test ;)) > > > > > >Mine is ~120 > > --- > Seems like you ought to have better control of English, then. 120? But that's in metric, not English. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |