Bom Names: What Are The Chances?

[Uncertain]

Nah, it doesn't lie there at all any more than picking a wife rests of a "burden of proof".

Can the sentence "Suzy is the girl for me" be true or false? How much proof is enough proof in that one?

I would take the position taken by Phillips in this 3 page review of a complex subject: http://www.arsdisput...279/article.pdf

I do belive we are talking about different subjects. I am discussing where the burdern of proof lies in scholarly work which attempts to claim a given set of observations are not due to random chance. You are talking about something entirely different. I am 100% correct in describing where the burden of proof would lie in the domain of scholarly work.

[Log]

Have you personally shown these matches are purely coincidence?

I haven't. Others have.

The null hypothesis (randomn chance) is always assumed to be true unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

You're bluffing by appealing to statistical language, but denying its substance - it's a sham to cover what is really a case of personal incredulity. You have neither proposed nor applied anything resembling hypothesis testing with regards to the Book of Mormon onomasticon; it remains to be seen whether a cogent case can be made that statistics is an appropriate tool to use to analyze the Book of Mormon names. So far, the null hypothesis with respect to that question seems to rule the day.

More simply - the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise, as you're the one advancing the affirmative claim that statistics is an appropriate tool in this analysis.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

I do belive we are talking about different subjects. I am discussing where the burdern of proof lies in scholarly work which attempts to claim a given set of observations are not due to random chance. You are talking about something entirely different. I am 100% correct in describing where the burden of proof would lie in the domain of scholarly work.

Of course, but that's not the REAL question here is it?

The real question is whether or not we should follow the path given in the Book of Mormon. That is the one that makes a real difference in someone's real life. Compared to that, all that scholarly stuff is just talk.

[Uncertain]

I haven't. Others have.

Sweet, Then if a place name near JS can randomly exactly match authentic ancient place names in the BOM. Why can't names in the BOM randomly match authentic ancient names? In other words if 19th century place names like Angola or Alma can randomly exactly match a name in the BOM. Why can't a name in the BOM randomly match an Egyptian or Hebrew name whats the difference?

You're bluffing by appealing to statistical language, but denying its substance - it's a sham to cover what is really a case of personal incredulity. You have neither proposed nor applied anything resembling hypothesis testing with regards to the Book of Mormon onomasticon;

Yep neither have BOM defenders this in a nutshell is the problem. The difference is the burdern of proof is on the person claiming a set of observations are not coincidence. In other words I am not the one who has to provide statistics that is your job.

it remains to be seen whether a cogent case can be made that statistics is an appropriate tool to use to analyze the Book of Mormon names. So far, the null hypothesis with respect to that question seems to rule the day.

More simply - the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise, as you're the one advancing the affirmative claim that statistics is an appropriate tool in this analysis.

I am not at all clear in what you are saying here. If someone wants to claim the a set of similarities is not due to coincidence the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate this. If they can’t do this because “statistics don’t apply” then so much the worst for them they have not met the burden of proof and their claim can rightly be rejected.

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

Uncertain

And besides that's not what you were talking about at all. You were talking about the veracity and importance of spiritual experience. No dodgy dodgy por favor.

Remember this?

You have precisely defined the crux of my dilemma. I believe there are very good reasons to suspect personal spiritual experiences are not good ways to determine universal truth. Hence I don't believe a personal spiritual experience is a good reason either to believe or disbelieve the BOM. I am left with secular type evidence which I find lacking based in part on the reason I give above.

Edited May 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

I am not at all clear in what you are saying here. If someone wants to claim the a set of similarities is not due to coincidence the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate this. If they can’t do this because “statistics don’t apply” then so much the worst for them they have not met the burden of proof and their claim can rightly be rejected.

Are you seriously saying that in all cases where statistics cannot be brought to bear in analyzing something for resemblance to something else then all claims regarding that something are rightly rejected?

CFR.

Or not - actually, since this claim of yours is not amenable to statistical analysis for resemblance to truth, it is to be rejected on the same grounds.

Interesting. What a powerful tool!

Edited May 4, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Are you seriously saying that in all cases where statistics cannot be brought to bear in analyzing something then all claims regarding that something are rightly rejected?

CFR.

Uh oh. I guess murder is right after all.

[Uncertain]

Uncertain

And besides that's not what you were talking about at all. You were talking about the veracity and importance of spiritual experience. No dodgy dodgy por favor.

Remember this?

Well I did briefly respond explaining my position, to your claim that the Holy Spirit is what you should depend on regarding BOM historicity. This is not the main topic of the thread. I will be more than happy to discuss the validity of spiritual experiences in determining universal truth in another thread. This in fact is one of my favorite topics.

P.S.

Although if another thread is started on this topic I could not particiapate until Monday.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited May 4, 2012 by Uncertain

[Uncertain]

duplicate

Edited May 4, 2012 by Uncertain

[TAO]

Uncertain, not quite correct. Science does not assume a 'null' hypothesis, rather, it uses it as a temporary solution to a problem that is to be explained later.

As of such, science cannot make any authoritative claims using 'null' hypothesis until they have been proven to be null or otherwise. It is simply a default position which is to be explored later.

Edited May 4, 2012 by TAO

[Uncertain]

Are you seriously saying that in all cases where statistics cannot be brought to bear in analyzing something for resemblance to something else then all claims regarding that something are rightly rejected?

CFR.

Or not - actually, since this claim of yours is not amenable to statistical analysis for resemblance to truth, it is to be rejected on the same grounds.

Interesting. What a powerful tool!

I have no idea how you got this from my reply. What I am saying is exactly what has been said earlier by both Brant and Ben who are both firm believers. There will be some degree of similarity between any two languages purely by coincidence. Therefore the fact words from one list of words are present in a seperate list of words is not a good reason to suggest dependence between those two word lists. It must be demonstrated in some fashion the degree of similarity between the two word lists are greater than would be expected by random chance. How this fact is demonstrated is not my problem because I don't have the burden of proof. Until this fact is demonstrated the default position is that the two word lists are not related this is the consensus position regarding where the burden of proof lies in every scientific discipline.

[mfbukowski]

Well I did briefly respond explaining my position, to your claim that the Holy Spirit is what you should depend on regarding BOM historicity. This is not the main topic of the thread. I will be more than happy to discuss the validity of spiritual experiences in determining universal truth in another thread. This in fact is one of my favorite topics.

P.S.

Although if another thread is started on this topic I could not particiapate until Monday.

Best,

Uncertain

Why bother? We've done that all before. There is no answer you can make to the questions there unless you address the REAL philosophical issues for example as brought up by in the review I linked to. And you won't do that.

But you are definitely dodging the point that Log brought up-

Edited to be more charitable

Edited May 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

I don't demand incontrovertible proof. I am pointing out where the burdern of proof does lie.

Look this really is the default position for any kind of scientific or scholarly work I promise I am not making this up. The burden of proof is on the person claiming a set of observations are statistically significant. I am not behaving any differently toward BOM apologetics than I do to any other field of study.

Best,

Uncertain

Since you did not quote a post, not sure what you are talking about.

As for myself, I am not talking about statistics. Let's take anthropology or archeology, where they often draw conclusions with very few data points. They find a few arrowheads or pottery from two locations which are very distant from each other. In one case they may conclude that they traded with each other. Or possibly that they are the result of a migration, having common ancestors. This was a discussion on the origins of the Native Americans when Clovis arrowheads were found both in North America and in Spain. See http://www.pbs.org/s...ents/1406-4.htm for example.

It could be just a coincidence, but I do not see any statistical analysis. There IS a discussion on the functional difficulties, such as how they emigrated from Europe to the Americas. And we can have a similar discussion on how an Akkadian word found itself among the Nephites. So, "coincidences" are found throughout archeology and anthropology, not only with the BOM.

Finally, the acceptance or denial of the BOM as scripture is not a casual issue. Our decision in that regard could have serious consequences not only in this life, but in the next. So you can put the burden of that important decision on my shoulders, but you will be disappointed when I put that decision where it ultimately rests. That is something between yourself and Deity.

Edited May 4, 2012 by cdowis

[Uncertain]

Uncertain, not quite correct. Science does not assume a 'null' hypothesis, rather, it uses it as a temporary solution to a problem that is to be explained later.

As of such, science cannot make any authoritative claims using 'null' hypothesis until they have been proven to be null or otherwise. It is simply a default position which is to be explored later.

If I understand you correctly I am not sure we disagree. The null hypothesis is that hypothesis which for the purpose of testing is assumed to be true until shown otherwise. In other words the null hypothesis is the general or default position when testing the alternative hypothesis. This of course does not mean the null hypothesis is actually true but it is the default when testing the alternative.

http://en.wikipedia....Null_hypothesis

So for example in the context of this discussion. The null hypothesis is that word matches between BOM names and ANE names is due to random chance or copying biblical language. The alternative hypothesis is that word matches between BOM names and ANE names are because authentic ANE authors wrote the BOM. You cannot assert the alternative hypothesis is correct until you have tested the null hypothesis and ruled it out.

It is true failing to reject the null hypothesis does not mean the null hypothesis is true. That is you assume the null hypotheis is true and then test to see whether the outcome fits the null hypothesis. If it does fit the null hypothesis this does not mean the null hypothesis is true but it does mean you are not warrented in assuming it is false.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited May 4, 2012 by Uncertain

[TAO]

Sweet, Then if a place name near JS can randomly exactly match authentic ancient place names in the BOM. Why can't names in the BOM randomly match authentic ancient names? In other words if 19th century place names like Angola or Alma can randomly exactly match a name in the BOM. Why can't a name in the BOM randomly match an Egyptian or Hebrew name whats the difference?

I don't like using the word random. We can't actually prove whether or not 'randomness' truly exists. What random really refers to is obscure relationships.

Things can be obscurely related (or as we would like to call it, coincidince). And things can also be non-obscurely related. However, in a situation where one is defaultly assumed, it is important to realize that it becomes the weakness in your argument. In other words, if you are using a default assumption in your argument, it is valid for the opponent to call that into question to invalidate your point. This is what Log has been doing here. You cannot show whether or not the names are coincidental or not, and thus, you cannot use it to determine any significant information and/or use it in any true/false claims.

Yep neither have BOM defenders this in a nutshell is the problem. The difference is the burdern of proof is on the person claiming a set of observations are not coincidence. In other words I am not the one who has to provide statistics that is your job.

Burden of Proof is on either side, actually. Each side is burdened to prove their point to the other. The other side is free to not believe their opponent until proof is broughten up. As cdowis noted, it is totally fine for both sides to continue to go on believing their own things while disagreeing with each other. Thus, it is whoever is asserting something (be it that X is right or X is wrong), that is burdened to prove it. Oftentimes, however (and in this situation), both sides make claims. We claim the information is not coincidental. You claim it is coincidental. Thus, both sides are burdened to prove their part to the other, in order for the other to be convinced.

I am not at all clear in what you are saying here. If someone wants to claim the a set of similarities is not due to coincidence the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate this. If they can’t do this because “statistics don’t apply” then so much the worst for them they have not met the burden of proof and their claim can rightly be rejected.

And, if someone wants to claim that the set of similarities IS do to coincidence, they are equally burdened with burden of proof. The default position is no less accepted than the non-default in an argument.

It's sort of like this: When you argue with an opponent, the only successful way to do it is to accept his beliefs to a degree. This means, when trying to get him to believe something, you are required to justify your beliefs, but he is not required to justify his. When he tries to convince you to believe something, he is required to justify his beliefs, but you are not required to justify yours. That way, things end up... sort of balanced, you could say.

Mmm... I'm not sure if I am explaining this too well. Sorry =p.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[Uncertain]

Why bother? We've done that all before. There is no answer you can make to the questions there unless you address the REAL philosophical issues for example as brought up by in the review I linked to. And you won't do that.

This is something we are going to have to agree to disagree on.

But you are definitely dodging the point that Log brought up-

What point am I dodging? I must have missed it please repeat it.

[TAO]

If I understand you correctly I am not sure we disagree. The null hypothesis is that hypothesis which for the purpose of testing is assumed to be true until shown otherwise. In other words the null hypothesis is the general or default position when testing the alternative hypothesis. This of course does not mean the null hypothesis is actually true but it is the default when testing the alternative.

Yes, but what is important to realize is that the null hypothesis upon assumption, cannot be used authoritatively. That means, it would be incorrect to say 'You are wrong to believe that the similarities are non-coincidental', because an assumption is being made. It is the burden of proof to whomever is asserting something is 'right or wrong', to justify it. However, it is not the burden of proof to whomever is simply believing it, but not asserting it.

The null hypothesis in actuality, is arbitrarily picked position. That is because, the default position is not necessarily what everyone believes. Thus, the default position has no 'logical leverage' to those who don't believe in it, thus, it is of no use arguing that it is acceptable as default. It is simply a placeholder, and a weakness in the proposed theory.

http://en.wikipedia....Null_hypothesis

If you read in Paragraph 3 of the article, it says "A null hypothesis can never be proven". Thus, you can never assert a null hypothesis to be true simply out of the sake of it being a null hypothesis.

So for example in the context of this discussion. The null hypothesis is that word matches between BOM names and ANE names is due to random chance or copying biblical language. The alternative hypothesis is that word matches between BOM names and ANE names are because authentic ANE authors wrote the BOM. You cannot assert the alternative hypothesis is correct until you have tested the null hypothesis and ruled it out.

According to the Wikipedia Article, that would not be an appropriate null hypothesis. The null hypothesis must be "assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data". We can't test this, so, it cannot be a null hypothesis. And even if it was, it could not prove an authoritative statement, it is simply a default position for a test, and not assertive until the test is completed.

It is true failing to reject the null hypothesis does not mean the null hypothesis is true. That is you assume the null hypotheis is true and then test to see whether the outcome fits the null hypothesis. If it does fit the null hypothesis this does not mean the null hypothesis is true but it does mean you are not warrented in assuming it is false.

Not correct. It does not mean that 'you are not warrented in assuming it false'. It means you are not warranted in claiming it false. There's a difference - you are warranted to believe anything you want - even that the moon is made of green cheese. What you are not warranted to do is to assert that others should believe the same without cause (you can see this in the case of how science and skepticism relate).

[Uncertain]

I don't like using the word random. We can't actually prove whether or not 'randomness' truly exists. What random really refers to is obscure relationships.

Things can be obscurely related (or as we would like to call it, coincidince). And things can also be non-obscurely related. However, in a situation where one is defaultly assumed, it is important to realize that it becomes the weakness in your argument. In other words, if you are using a default assumption in your argument, it is valid for the opponent to call that into question to invalidate your point. This is what Log has been doing here. You cannot show whether or not the names are coincidental or not, and thus, you cannot use it to determine any significant information and/or use it in any true/false claims.

Burden of Proof is on either side, actually. Each side is burdened to prove their point to the other. The other side is free to not believe their opponent until proof is broughten up. As cdowis noted, it is totally fine for both sides to continue to go on believing their own things while disagreeing with each other. Thus, it is whoever is asserting something (be it that X is right or X is wrong), that is burdened to prove it. Oftentimes, however (and in this situation), both sides make claims. We claim the information is not coincidental. You claim it is coincidental. Thus, both sides are burdened to prove their part to the other, in order for the other to be convinced.

And, if someone wants to claim that the set of similarities IS do to coincidence, they are equally burdened with burden of proof. The default position is no less accepted than the non-default in an argument.

It's sort of like this: When you argue with an opponent, the only successful way to do it is to accept his beliefs to a degree. This means, when trying to get him to believe something, you are required to justify your beliefs, but he is not required to justify his. When he tries to convince you to believe something, he is required to justify his beliefs, but you are not required to justify yours. That way, things end up... sort of balanced, you could say.

Mmm... I'm not sure if I am explaining this too well. Sorry =p.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

First the argument I understand you and Log are making.

Unless someone can rigorously show similarities between the BOM and the ANE are coincidental or due to copying biblical language. The default position is that these connections are due to authentic ancient authorship of the BOM.Therefore the burden of proof is on those who assert the similarities between the BOM and the ANE are coincidental.

Is this correct?

My counter position.

It is scientific convention to assume coincidence unless proven otherwise. There are good reasons for this view some of which I outlined in post #70. Therefore the burden of proof is on those asserting significance. This burden has not been met.

I will try one more time to explain why controls are so important in science and why the scientific convention is the way it is using relevant examples.

As described earlier in this thread some degree of similarity would be expected between any two list of words regardless if these lists of words are related. In the case of the BOM we know this is the case. Take the place names in the BOM Angola and Alma. Both of these place names happen to randomly match place names near where JS lived. This is not because the BOM depends on place names near JS, it is simply due to coincidence random chance. This example shows that random matches can and do occur between BOM names and lists of words that are not related to the BOM in any fashion. Therefore the fact there are words in the BOM that happen to match lists of ANE words in and of itself is not at all good evidence the BOM was written by ANE authors. Because such matches would be expected to occur even if the BOM was a modern production. This is why the default position is that word matches by themselves is not a good reason to think the BOM is written by ancient authors. This is why the scientific convention is to assume random chance until proven otherwise. Because random chance will almost always produce some level of effect therefore if you want to claim some level of effect is meaningful you need to first rule out random chance. Scientists do the things they do for very good reasons there has been a great deal of thought that goes into matters like this.

[Uncertain]

Yes, but what is important to realize is that the null hypothesis upon assumption, cannot be used authoritatively. That means, it would be incorrect to say 'You are wrong to believe that the similarities are non-coincidental', because an assumption is being made. It is the burden of proof to whomever is asserting something is 'right or wrong', to justify it. However, it is not the burden of proof to whomever is simply believing it, but not asserting it.

The null hypothesis in actuality, is arbitrarily picked position. That is because, the default position is not necessarily what everyone believes. Thus, the default position has no 'logical leverage' to those who don't believe in it, thus, it is of no use arguing that it is acceptable as default. It is simply a placeholder, and a weakness in the proposed theory.

If you read in Paragraph 3 of the article, it says "A null hypothesis can never be proven". Thus, you can never assert a null hypothesis to be true simply out of the sake of it being a null hypothesis.

According to the Wikipedia Article, that would not be an appropriate null hypothesis. The null hypothesis must be "assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data". We can't test this, so, it cannot be a null hypothesis. And even if it was, it could not prove an authoritative statement, it is simply a default position for a test, and not assertive until the test is completed.

Not correct. It does not mean that 'you are not warrented in assuming it false'. It means you are not warranted in claiming it false. There's a difference - you are warranted to believe anything you want - even that the moon is made of green cheese. What you are not warranted to do is to assert that others should believe the same without cause (you can see this in the case of how science and skepticism relate).

I do believe we are going to have to agree to disagree on how we understand what a null hypothesis is. I do agree the null hypothesis is not necassarily true it is assumed to be true for the purpose of testing. That is under the assumption the null hypothsis is true what is the likelyhood of seeing an effect at least as large or larger than the effect I do in fact see.

[TAO]

First the argument I understand you and Log are making.

Unless someone can rigorously show similarities between the BOM and the ANE are coincidental or due to copying biblical language. The default position is that these connections are due to authentic ancient authorship of the BOM.Therefore the burden of proof is on those who assert the similarities between the BOM and the ANE are coincidental.

Nah, that's not my argument. My argument is that the whole idea of 'universal default positions' if flawed.

People hold different default positions all of the time. We are internally bound, and so it's impossible to create a 'universal default position'.

It is scientific convention to assume coincidence unless proven otherwise. There are good reasons for this view some of which I outlined in post #70. Therefore the burden of proof is on those asserting significance. This burden has not been met.

No, that's not scientific convention. The only reason it appears in science is because it's part of a much larger philosophy called 'logical positivism'. I disagree with some of the philosophies espoused by logical postivism. You are encountering one of those - I don't believe people are burdened to prove what they believe. Logical Postivists do, and it is reflected in science, which alot of logical positivsts hold to strongly.

The reason why logical postivism fails, in my point of view, is because it cannot answer skeptic's question - that is, because it cannot prove that reality exists in any shape or form, it is burdened to say that it doesn't exist. That doesn't cut it for me.

I will try one more time to explain why controls are so important in science and why the scientific convention is the way it is using relevant examples.

Controls are important, but you cannot use them authoritatively.

As described earlier in this thread some degree of similarity would be expected between any two list of words regardless if these lists of words are related. In the case of the BOM we know this is the case. Take the place names in the BOM Angola and Alma. Both of these place names happen to randomly match place names near where JS lived. This is not because the BOM depends on place names near JS, it is simply due to coincidence random chance. This example shows that random matches can and do occur between BOM names and lists of words that are not related to the BOM in any fashion. Therefore the fact there are words in the BOM that happen to match lists of ANE words in and of itself is not at all good evidence the BOM was written by ANE authors. Because such matches would be expected to occur even if the BOM was a modern production. This is why the default position is that word matches by themselves is not a good reason to think the BOM is written by ancient authors. This is why the scientific convention is to assume random chance until proven otherwise. Because random chance will almost always produce some level of effect therefore if you want to claim some level of effect is meaningful you need to first rule out random chance. Scientists do the things they do for very good reasons there has been a great deal of thought that goes into matters like this.

Naturally, but that just refutes a possible claim that because the words are similar, they wrote it. It does not justify the 'default position' that they did not write it. Rather, it prevents a 'default position' that they did write it. To justify the 'default position', you have to have proof.

It is not scientific convention to assume random chance until proven otherwise. If it was, quantum physics wouldn't have been such a big deal, considering it deal with 'real' chance. Chance is actually something that is avoided by the scientific community. What is not avoided is arbitrariness; and arbitrariness is not a solid justification when an assertion.

Edited May 4, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

I do believe we are going to have to agree to disagree on how we understand what a null hypothesis is. I do agree the null hypothesis is not necassarily true it is assumed to be true for the purpose of testing. That is under the assumption the null hypothsis is true what is the likelyhood of seeing an effect at least as large or larger than the effect I do in fact see.

That is fine; let's agree to disagree.

I am a bit curious about how you deal with the claims of skepticism though. Skepticism is a bit different to say, nonetheless.

Edited May 4, 2012 by TAO

[Uncertain]

Nah, that's not my argument. My argument is that the whole idea of 'universal default positions' if flawed.

People hold different default positions all of the time. We are internally bound, and so it's impossible to create a 'universal default position'.

I am not advocating a "universal default position". I am pointing out how questions of signficance regarding observations are asked and answered in the sciences.

No, that's not scientific convention. The only reason it appears in science is because it's part of a much larger philosophy called 'logical positivism'. I disagree with some of the philosophies espoused by logical postivism. You are encountering one of those - I don't believe people are burdened to prove what they believe. Logical Postivists do, and it is reflected in science, which alot of logical positivsts hold to strongly.

The reason why logical postivism fails, in my point of view, is because it cannot answer skeptic's question - that is, because it cannot prove that reality exists in any shape or form, it is burdened to say that it doesn't exist. That doesn't cut it for me.

Controls are important, but you cannot use them authoritatively.

Naturally, but that just refutes a possible claim that because the words are similar, they wrote it. It does not justify the 'default position' that they did not write it. Rather, it prevents a 'default position' that they did write it. To justify the 'default position', you have to have proof.

It is not scientific convention to assume random chance until proven otherwise. If it was, quantum physics wouldn't have been such a big deal, considering it deal with 'real' chance. Chance is actually something that is avoided by the scientific community. What is not avoided is arbitrariness; and arbitrariness is not a solid justification when an assertion.

Well I am not sure how to respond to this. I am not all that interested in a debate on the merits of logical positivism.

[TAO]

I am not advocating a "universal default position". I am pointing out how questions of signficance regarding observations are asked and answered in the sciences.

Ok, but then why are you trying to use the default position authoritatively? The most you can say about it without making it a 'universal default position' is to say that it's a position that some people hold, but others are free to disagree with (because there is no proof either way).

Well I am not sure how to respond to this. I am not all that interested in a debate on the merits of logical positivism.

Okay.

[Uncertain]

Ok, but then why are you trying to use the default position authoritatively? The most you can say about it without making it a 'universal default position' is to say that it's a position that some people hold, but others are free to disagree with (because there is no proof either way).

Clearly I have not explained myself very well. It is the common default position in the sciences when testing whether or not a given effect is signficant. To assume the effect is generated by random chance and then calcuate how likely the given effect would be assuming it is produced by a random process.If the likelhood of observing an effect is low assuming random chance they you reject the hypothsis the generating process was random. If the likely of observing an effect is high assuming random chance you can't assume the process is random but you certainly can't claim the process was nonrandom. The point is until such tests are made simply assuming or asserting something is non random is not warranted.

In any case I can see I am making little traction and I will be off line for the weekend. So I will likely not respond and if I do it won't be until Monday.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited May 5, 2012 by Uncertain

[Log]

Clearly I have not explained myself very well. It is the common default position in the sciences ... <snip>

You are attempting to shoehorn science, inappropriately, into someplace where science does not, and cannot, inform any view. This is the realm of history, literature, and comparative culture. The best you can do is draw parallels and compare them and see which you find more convincing. Once you start attempting to use the language of probability and statistics in these issues, you have actually defined yourself outside of the conversation on these topics.

In other words: you are committing a category error, as I illustrated in post 81, and as you illustrated in post 86.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Log