Comments on: Some Thanks for Professor Olofsson

By: Sal Gal

Sal Gal — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:50:14 +0000

This discussion continues at a new thread Barry A created. Thanks, Barry.

By: Prof_P.Olofsson

Prof_P.Olofsson — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:57:08 +0000

IDskeptic[344],
It’s free, it’s online, and it might end abruptly at any time!

By: Prof_P.Olofsson

Prof_P.Olofsson — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:55:38 +0000

gpuccio, if you’re still around:

I intended to reply to all your criticism but we haven’t even made it to Behe yet. It usually happens and the last time I debated at UD, we set a length record (the “Archie Bunker” thread). I have comments about Behe as well but I think we’ll take them “off the air” if you’re still interested.

By: IDskeptic

IDskeptic — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:50:18 +0000

I’d love a free online statistics correspondence course…

By: Prof_P.Olofsson

Prof_P.Olofsson — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:47:44 +0000

RoyK[341],
I know, but I have already explained to him in an email the difference between a rejection region and a “rejection region.” He said I shouldn’t expect a reply but I still hope he read it. We can also look back at Mark Frank’s comment [237] or my comments [276] and [280]. I said I wouldn’t continue this debate but I reneged because PaV asked questions that I can answer. We’ll see how much stamina I have!

By: Prof_P.Olofsson

Prof_P.Olofsson — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:34:09 +0000

By the way, what’s often done in screenings for a disease is to first use a test with high sensitivity (will catch most disease cases but also many normal cases). Then the positive cases are restested with another test that has higher specificity (will weed out most false positives). The reason for not using the second test from the beginning is that it’s more expensive or time-consuming. I have personal experience in testing for TB for my green card application. First I tested positive with the skin test because I’d been vaccinated which gives a lot of false positives. Then I was cleared with a chest X ray. More specific because it actually looks at the lungs and is not affected by previous vaccinations.

By: RoyK

RoyK — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:29:43 +0000

PO, you see where PaV is going here. By getting you to admit that you would “reject” if p=.1, or .2 or .3 or .4, he will say that these constitute an implicit “rejection region.” Can you please respond to this “implicit” logical trap?

By: Prof_P.Olofsson

Prof_P.Olofsson — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:17:29 +0000

PaV[336],
Pleae ignore [338], I pressed return by mistake. You write

When the conditional hypothesis assumes a ‘normal’ population, then why would you want to accept false positives.

Well, you wouldn’t, but everybody isn’t normal. You have a population that is composed of normals and schizophrenics and you have two conditional probabilities, one for normals and one for schizophrenics. Among the normals, 3% test positive and among the schizophrenics, 97% test positive. As there are so few schizophrenics, most positive cases are actually miclassified normals. It’s a common problem in any type of screening.

(1) According to Shandin, the true probability of getting a false positive is around 60%. Does that mean if the test were conducted twice on the same individual that the likelihood of that person getting a false positive 36%.

Good question. No, the 36% (60% of 60%) would assume independence. Here, an individual tested twice would likely get the same test result twice (although that of course depends on the test and I don’t know what it is) so the false-positive rate would still be 60%.

(2) Yes.

By: tribune7

tribune7 — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:10:30 +0000

I challenge the notion that there can be any empirical basis for saying that something that is not empirically observable causes the empirical distribution to deviate from the average. In the scenario of an indifferent creator of distributions, the uniform distribution is no more likely than any other. One must actually violate the Principle of Indifference to say that the data should be distributed in one way, and not another.

But there is a reality and this includes the existence of design. Attempts to quantify it are certainly not beyond the pale.

And I suspect Dembski’s methods have grounds for improvement — it is a fairly new thing, after all — but it is a pretty solid at bat.

You have to bring something non-empirical to the table to argue that empirical distributions should “look” one way and not another.

Sal Gal, that almost sounds like something Godel would say

But then again he went ahead and proved God anyway.

I am here to say that the only important things I know are unspeakable absurdities. They are a matter of private experience, not empirical observation or proof.

I agree with this. And unlike Godel, ID will not prove God nor is it designed to do so.

It will, however, illustrate the dangerous and cruel absurdity that society should be predicated on the belief that everything happened by accident and that there is no absolute purpose for our existence.

By: Prof_P.Olofsson

Prof_P.Olofsson — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:04:39 +0000

PaV[336],you won’t accept false positives.

When the conditional hypothesis assumes a ‘normal’ population, then why would you want to accept false positives.