Home » Intelligent Design » Barry Arrington and Elizabeth Liddle Have Something in Common

Barry Arrington and Elizabeth Liddle Have Something in Common

Nutty Statistics Professors.
Dr. Liddle wrote: “I was taught stats by a somewhat eccentric professor who would fail papers if you gave a p value! He’d return the paper with red ink all over it,saying “DO NOT DO THIS”. And would withhold a pass mark until you’d deleted it.”
This put me in mind of my own advanced statistics professor.* Every day he would spend the first 20 minutes of class going on and on about his real passion — the study of paranormal activity. I still groan inwardly thinking it about all these years later.
BTW, as much as I pick on her, I really like Dr. Liddle. I may have mistaken her stubborn insistence on sticking to her guns (in the face of what I perceive as overwhelming and irrefutable arguments to the contrary) as intellectual dishonesty, and if I did I apologize. Dr. Liddle, I hope you continue to post here. As frustrating as you can be, this would be a boring site if we did not have someone from the other side to joust with. And it is fun to joust with you.

*Why does a lawyer need to know statistics one might ask? I was a CPA before I was a lawyer, and modern audit practices rely heavily on statistical sampling.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

21 Responses to Barry Arrington and Elizabeth Liddle Have Something in Common

  1. I may have mistaken her stubborn insistence on sticking to her guns (in the face of what I perceive as overwhelming and irrefutable arguments to the contrary) as intellectual dishonesty, and if I did I apologize.

    Three points:
    1) she is;
    2) you did;
    3) IF you intend to present yourself as apologizing (even though in this case it is intellectually dishonest to do so), THEN make a real apology, dammit!

  2. B.Arrington:I may have mistaken her stubborn insistence on sticking to her guns (in the face of what I perceive as overwhelming and irrefutable arguments to the contrary) as intellectual dishonesty …

    Ilíon:IF you intend to present yourself as apologizing (even though in this case it is intellectually dishonest to do so) …

    On further consideration, as Mrs Liddle’s intellectual dishonesty does not rest in her “ stubborn insistence on sticking to her guns (in the face of what [her opponents] perceive as overwhelming and irrefutable arguments to the contrary)”, and if that is why you were calling her intellectually dishonest, then you OUGHT to be apologizing to her. Since you appear to not understand the grounds upon which one determines that his opponent is intellectually dishonest, you ought not be making the charge in the first place.

  3. Thank you, Barry!

    I really appreciate this.

  4. You appreciate a pretend apology?

  5. Ilion, I assume that people say what they mean and mean what they say.

  6. Elizabeth’s “guns” have no ammo, so it’s probably safest for all if she continues to stick to them. No one will get hurt, and the truth doesn’t really matter anyways.

  7. LOL

  8. Barry,

    Your apology does you great credit. Hat off to you.

  9. Barry, you wrote :

    “BTW, as much as I pick on her, I really like Dr. Liddle. I may have mistaken her stubborn insistence on sticking to her guns (in the face of what I perceive as overwhelming and irrefutable arguments to the contrary) as intellectual dishonesty, and if I did I apologize.”

    As well as the apology, your comment generously accepts you may have made a (unquestionably honest) mistake in Dr Liddle’s attitude. Something we all do from time to time (generally, I mean, not specifically about Dr Liddle!), and it just goes with being human.

    But Dr Liddle’s opinions are very widely held (I hold them myself, although I don’t come anywhere near articulating them so well as Dr Liddle). Does this suggest to you that the arguments you raise may not be quite as “overwhelming” or “irrefutable” as you might previously have believed?

  10. … if I did I apologize.

  11. Let us suppose that Mr Arrington had said that you’re stupid. And, let us suppose that he’d “apologized” thus: “I’m sorry you took offence at what I may have said”, rather than “I’m sorry for what I said”.

    Now, the fact is, you *are* intellectually dishonest, and several regulars at UD, because they’d had their fill of it, have documented discrete instances of intellectually dishonest behavior by you. But, going over that well-worn territory is not the point here.

    The point here is that Mr Arrington presents himself as apologizing to you when he has done nothing of the sort. And the secondary point is that you appear unable to grasp that (I don’t know, perhaps this apparent inability is related to your own long-standing choice to say just anything, including the opposite of what you’ve already said).

  12. Ilion, you do not seem to know what a “fact” is.

  13. The point here is that Mr Arrington presents himself as apologizing to you when he has done nothing of the sort.

    Are you accusing Barry of being insincere in what he writes?

  14. What’s kind of funny about Mr Arrington’s fake apology is that not too long ago he was running a contest here at UD to mock the fake apology of a Darwinist thug educationist.

  15. Who needs to accuse anyone of anything when he can simply point to the facts?

  16. … or, to put it another way, why would I intentionaly engage in motive mongering?

  17. I may have mistaken her stubborn insistence on sticking to her guns (in the face of what I perceive as overwhelming and irrefutable arguments to the contrary) as intellectual dishonesty, and if I did I apologize.

    You may have mistaken her intransigence for intellectual dishonesty, notwithstanding her denials of intransigence.

  18. Ilion, you do not seem to know what a “fact” is.

    Dr. Liddle, have you considered that perhaps it’s time to adjust your model in light of the facts?

  19. It’s models, now? No more maps? Or, oh-happy-day, can we have both models and maps? Oh, and some territory, too.

  20. It’s models. Models on models. Models all the say down.

    You modeled the map when you should have modeled the territory. Modeling the map is like modeling the model of the territory.

    But understanding that Elizabeth thinks her brain is just creating models of things and all we’re getting from her are her descriptions of her models helps to understand where she isn’t coming from.

    Not sure it helps communication at all, but hey.

  21. Yes, indeed.

    And our models approach reality asymptotically.

Leave a Reply