Andrea Bottaro posted Entry 2380 on June 16, 2006 12:52 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2375

Never underestimate the ID advocates’ propensity for wishful thinking. Bill Dembski has just informed his acolytes that “International interest in ID is growing.” (bold in the original). The reason? Well, according to Dembski, Australians search for “intelligent design” via the Google engine at 6 times the rate per person of their American counterparts. The Danes, a whopping 20 times as much!

Before you start thinking that something is rotten in Denmark, and planning a moral boycott of delicious jelly-filled pastries by relabeling them “Darwin rolls” or something, think again. The only rotten thing here is Dembski’s understanding of how the comparative Google searches are tabulated, despite the fact that the information is clearly shown on the Google site.

Dembski says:

Google trends for searching on “intelligent design”
The following Google graph shows trends for searches on “intelligent design”: http://www.google.com/trends?q=Intelligent+Design&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all. Click on the “regions” tab. It shows that Australia has about half the searches for ID that the US does. Given that Australia’s population is about 20 million, that means that if the US population is 250 million, Australia searches for ID on average 6 times more per person than does the US. And 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.

Now, if you follow that link, and click on the “Regions” tab in the lower panel, indeed you will see that the US is the top region for Google searches on ID, followed by Australia, Denmark, Canada, etc. However, you will also see a link, right next to the “Top regions” label that says “normalized”. If you are a PhD mathematician, like Dembski, or even if you just have completed high school, you should know what that means. It means that the values shown are not absolute numbers of searches, but are ratios of the searches versus some other variable. If you follow that link, you find that in fact

Google Trends calculates the ratio of searches for your term coming from each city divided by total Google searches coming from the same city….
The Regions and Languages tabs work just like the Cities tab.

In other words, relatively to all the local Google searches (which of course corrects for population size, as well as use of internet and of the Google search engine in particular), Australians search for ID just about half as often as Americans, and Danes about a third as much. Luckily, Andorra does not appear in the list of top regions, because Dembski would have probably concluded that Pyrenean mountaineers spend all their time obsessively Googling for ID info.

But going back to the Google Trends page, there is in fact some interesting info there. If you look at the graph at the top, which represents the actual trend in the search volume, you will see that Google searches for ID peaked dramatically during the Kitzmiller trial, especially around the verdict, but have been steadily declining since, and have returned to values comparable to pre-Kitzmiller levels. So, global “interest in ID” (as crudely measured by Google search ratios), has not grown discernibly despite the enormous publicity afforded by the Kitzmiller trial. Indeed, it seems that most web surfers read about Judge Jones’s ruling that ID is just “creation science” repackaged, and went on ignoring the topic, just as they did before. But hey, who knows, a few more resounding legal defeats, and people may indeed take notice.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #106058

Posted by Stephen Elliott on June 16, 2006 12:17 PM (e)

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

Comment #106060

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on June 16, 2006 12:20 PM (e)

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

Comment #106063

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 16, 2006 12:25 PM (e)

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

Comment #106064

Posted by Glen Davidson on June 16, 2006 12:26 PM (e)

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

Comment #106065

Posted by J-Dog on June 16, 2006 12:26 PM (e)

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?

Comment #106066

Posted by Rich on June 16, 2006 12:31 PM (e)

I’ve got a copy before it erm, ‘disappears’.

Comment #106067

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on June 16, 2006 12:32 PM (e)

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

In this case, neither. As I said, it is probably just a case of wishful thinking. When you are starved for good news, and you think that you may be on a roll in Denmark, you don’t question the data, you take it.

(It kind of reminds me of the ending of This is Spinal Tap, when at the end of their disastrous tour, Nigel Tuffnail comes back and announces to the band that their new record has hit the charts in Japan, so they pack up and go.)

Comment #106075

Posted by DragonScholar on June 16, 2006 12:55 PM (e)

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”

Comment #106076

Posted by Gerard Harbison on June 16, 2006 12:58 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106077

Posted by Rich on June 16, 2006 12:58 PM (e)

HEY, AS PREDICTED IT DISSAPEARED!

Do you want the copy?

Comment #106080

Posted by Rob on June 16, 2006 1:02 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106083

Posted by Ben on June 16, 2006 1:09 PM (e)

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! ;-)

Comment #106084

Posted by Flint on June 16, 2006 1:09 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106085

Posted by Moses on June 16, 2006 1:11 PM (e)

It must suck to be Dembski…

Comment #106086

Posted by Martin Hafner on June 16, 2006 1:13 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106087

Posted by Vyoma on June 16, 2006 1:17 PM (e)

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?

Comment #106088

Posted by Hans on June 16, 2006 1:19 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106089

Posted by J-Dog on June 16, 2006 1:20 PM (e)

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

Comment #106094

Posted by Inoculated Mind on June 16, 2006 1:37 PM (e)

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

Comment #106098

Posted by Ejuve on June 16, 2006 1:51 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106099

Posted by 2hulls on June 16, 2006 1:51 PM (e)

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

Comment #106101

Posted by J-Dog on June 16, 2006 2:07 PM (e)

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…

Comment #106102

Posted by blipey on June 16, 2006 2:11 PM (e)

Thank-you, ejuve:

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.

While I definitely think it funny that The Isaac Newton of Information Muddling gets his math wrong…nice catch, isn’t the stupidest thing about his claim:

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

The great majority of my students understand this difference, and some of them are 12 year-olds.

Comment #106104

Posted by Peter Henderson on June 16, 2006 2:19 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/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 !

Comment #106105

Posted by normdoering on June 16, 2006 2:20 PM (e)

J-Dog wrote:

This is like watching a train wreck… Ouch! That’s gotta leave a mark…

The train wreck already happened – what you’re seeing is the mark.

Americans are now mostly morons and here is more evidence that they elect Southern Republican morons to represent them:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellis-weiner/an-open-inquiry-into-stup_b_23169.html

Eventually, they’ll make laws against smart people and we’ll all be purged.

See! All that mercury was causing brain damage!

Comment #106106

Posted by thurdl01 on June 16, 2006 2:22 PM (e)

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…

Comment #106108

Posted by Gerard Harbison on June 16, 2006 2:26 PM (e)

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

I pointed that out a couple of hours ago, but they didn’t post my comment.

Probably I should have left out the question asking what brand of crackerjack hands out math Ph.D.s these days.

Comment #106111

Posted by Roger on June 16, 2006 2:30 PM (e)

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

Ramen

Comment #106113

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on June 16, 2006 2:40 PM (e)

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

Let’s not mis-quote here. Billy Boy said “interest in” not “support of”.

Comment #106114

Posted by Moses on June 16, 2006 2:42 PM (e)

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 !

Of course they are! With evolution you have to understand a lot of complex stuff that requires a lot of study and memorization. Then you have to disgorge it on a long, complicated examination.

With ID you can just write: “Goddidit” and get your “A.” That’ll leave 45 minutes left for playing with your Tamagotchi or whatever it is you want to do for the rest of the period…

Comment #106115

Posted by G.Shelley on June 16, 2006 2:45 PM (e)

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

Comment #106117

Posted by Mr Christopher on June 16, 2006 3:09 PM (e)

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

Comment #106118

Posted by dhogaza on June 16, 2006 3:17 PM (e)

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

Yes, but not in arithmetic. As we all know, he’s not interested in pathetic levels of detail … it’s not HIS job to prove his claim that 2+2=5!

Comment #106122

Posted by Dene Bebbington on June 16, 2006 3:38 PM (e)

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

Comment #106123

Posted by Mike on June 16, 2006 3:39 PM (e)

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

Comment #106125

Posted by Rich on June 16, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

No “continued below..” type summary Bill? Ashamed of something?

Comment #106129

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 16, 2006 4:14 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106177

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 5:37 PM (e)

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

Comment #106184

Posted by Bob King on June 16, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

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?

Comment #106186

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

What’s the old adage? “Even relentlessly humiliating press is good press”?

Comment #106189

Posted by RBH on June 16, 2006 6:01 PM (e)

Bob King wrote

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.

To be fair, a contributor named Gil Dodgen wrote that post on UD.

RBH

Comment #106190

Posted by Bob King on June 16, 2006 6:04 PM (e)

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

Comment #106198

Posted by Shalini, BBWAD on June 16, 2006 7:49 PM (e)

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*

Comment #106199

Posted by Shalini, BBWAD on June 16, 2006 7:51 PM (e)

[been]

Sorry, I meant ‘being’.

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

Comment #106205

Posted by mark on June 16, 2006 8:27 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106209

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 16, 2006 8:59 PM (e)

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.)

Comment #106210

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

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

Comment #106211

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on June 16, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

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.)

From William A. Dembski’s online CV:

M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983

Comment #106212

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 16, 2006 9:23 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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

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.)

Comment #106214

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 16, 2006 9:30 PM (e)

Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

From William A. Dembski’s online CV:

M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago 1983

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.

Comment #106215

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 9:31 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106216

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 16, 2006 9:39 PM (e)

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.

I suspect that Dembski told Coulter what he really really wants to be true, as best he could, knowing how lax her standards of objective reality are anyway.

As for Bill’s blunder here, he obviously should have known better. It looks to me like he really just was not paying attention. He needed some feelgood shit to put up on his blog to pump up the troops’ morale, and he got careless. Much like how he does his biology.

Comment #106217

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 9:42 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106218

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 16, 2006 9:46 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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…”

That’s right. As I have written there and elsewhere:

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.)

Comment #106219

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106220

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 9:53 PM (e)

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

Comment #106221

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 16, 2006 9:57 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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.

You are welcome to your horse laugh, but this ain’t physics and you’re out of your element.

Comment #106222

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on June 16, 2006 10:03 PM (e)

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.

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

Comment #106223

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 10:05 PM (e)

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).

Comment #106224

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 16, 2006 10:14 PM (e)

Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

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

I have not read Bill’s books, so I cannot comment on the quality of the mathematics therein, but I have no reason to believe he is deficient in that regard. I do not believe he has much, if any, skill with applied statistics, though. (This is hardly a mark against him in my book, since I prefer probability to applied statistics myself.)

Comment #106225

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 16, 2006 10:15 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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).

Where’s your stat mech?

Comment #106226

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 10:23 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106227

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 10:32 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106228

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on June 16, 2006 10:35 PM (e)

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.

(Source)

Dembski is staking his entire “design inference” on the field of applied statistics.

Are you sure that you want to take the route of saying that Dembski’s applied statistics background was deficient?

Comment #106230

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 10:44 PM (e)

LOL pretty sweet, Wes.

Comment #106232

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 16, 2006 10:54 PM (e)

Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

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.

Dembski is staking his entire “design inference” on the field of applied statistics.

Are you sure that you want to take the route of saying that Dembski’s applied statistics background was deficient?

Wesley:

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

Comment #106233

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 16, 2006 10:58 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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 have some stat mech books, but I imagine that one is probably more advanced.

Comment #106234

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 11:07 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106235

Posted by Gerard Harbison on June 16, 2006 11:15 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106236

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 11:18 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106237

Posted by Gerard Harbison on June 16, 2006 11:38 PM (e)

I just realised I posted a bad link.

Here’s the link to where Dembski’s ‘renormalization’ was plagiarized.

Comment #106239

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 11:43 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106240

Posted by steve s on June 16, 2006 11:49 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106266

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 17, 2006 8:46 AM (e)

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.

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 … ?

Comment #106275

Posted by AR on June 17, 2006 9:38 AM (e)

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.

Comment #106277

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 17, 2006 10:07 AM (e)

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)

Comment #106279

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:

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

So I think we can then safely assume that Dembski’s current crowing over ID’s sudden, uh, “international popularity” is, indeed, a confirmation that he thinks ID is irrevocably lost in the US, and must move on to less, uh, over-fertilized pastures.

Comment #106283

Posted by Stephen Elliott on June 17, 2006 10:27 AM (e)

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:…

He has predicted a few things. From his predictive accuracy so far; I wont be asking him to choose my lottery numbers.

Comment #106289

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 17, 2006 11:18 AM (e)

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.

Shoot, I learned that lesson in elementary school! Never copy off the kid sitting next to you, because he could have wrong answers!

Comment #106290

Posted by k.e. on June 17, 2006 11:19 AM (e)

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.

Comment #106296

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on June 17, 2006 11:35 AM (e)

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. :-)

Comment #106308

Posted by steve s on June 17, 2006 11:46 AM (e)

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.

Will Dembski ever tire of getting burned?

Comment #106309

Posted by Arden Chatfield on June 17, 2006 11:52 AM (e)

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.

That might be Dembski’s strategy. DS’s strategy seems to be to brazen it out. When he 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.

Comment #106310

Posted by k.e. on June 17, 2006 12:06 PM (e)

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!!

Comment #106311

Posted by steve s on June 17, 2006 12:10 PM (e)

The episode definitely goes in the upcoming

Uncommonly Dense: Exclusive Fan Edition

Comment #106323

Posted by PvM on June 17, 2006 2:37 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106324

Posted by Tracy P. Hamilton on June 17, 2006 2:53 PM (e)

Rev. Dr. Lenny Frank wrote:

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 … ?”

They are after normalization!

Comment #106325

Posted by neuralsmith on June 17, 2006 2:53 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106328

Posted by Alexander Kjerulf on June 17, 2006 4:31 PM (e)

... wrote:

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?

Let’s not even joke about that, OK?

- A dane

PS. The fact is that ID has zero traction in Denmark. It’s not taught in any schools, there is no public debate about it and it’s completely absent from the mass media - except perhaps for the occasional “Look what strange things are going on in the US. Some people are arguing for ID, can you believe it?” story.

Comment #106334

Posted by Kaptain Kobold on June 17, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

“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.

Comment #106337

Posted by steve s on June 17, 2006 6:04 PM (e)

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

Comment #106378

Posted by kenny on June 18, 2006 3:24 AM (e)

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”.

Comment #106451

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 18, 2006 6:03 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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

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

Comment #106475

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on June 18, 2006 8:35 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106478

Posted by steve s on June 18, 2006 8:55 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106479

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on June 18, 2006 8:59 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106481

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 18, 2006 9:05 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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.

As far as I am concerned, DaveScot & friends are unqualified to discuss your unqualified judgments of Bill’s probability. :-)

Comment #106482

Posted by steve s on June 18, 2006 9:08 PM (e)

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

Comment #106488

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 18, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

Dude with umlauts wrote:

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

Which one?

Dude with umlauts wrote:

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

That is a distinct possibility. BTW, you might be interested in the e-mail I received from the prof who invited Bill to NBI.

Comment #106489

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 18, 2006 9:27 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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. :-)

Comment #106490

Posted by steve s on June 18, 2006 9:32 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106493

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 18, 2006 10:08 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

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

Not that I know of.

Comment #106507

Posted by Anton Mates on June 18, 2006 11:59 PM (e)

Robert O'Brien wrote:

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

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

Comment #106513

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 19, 2006 12:37 AM (e)

Anton Mates wrote:

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

Anything that ain’t probability or statistics is up to the relevant experts. I don’t know exactly what Bill’s arguments entail, so I can only speak in generalities.

Comment #106515

Posted by Popper's Ghost on June 19, 2006 1:46 AM (e)

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.)

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.

Comment #106592

Posted by William E Emba on June 19, 2006 9:09 AM (e)

Robert O'Brien wrote:

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

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.

Comment #106680

Posted by steve s on June 19, 2006 4:49 PM (e)

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’.

Comment #106821

Posted by Steve Pehnec on June 20, 2006 10:36 AM (e)

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!

Comment #106828

Posted by William E Emba on June 20, 2006 11:12 AM (e)

steve s wrote:

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.

He claimed that no one here was knowledgeable enough to criticize Dembski’s math. This claim automatically implied the PT critics are all incorrect.

Comment #106833

Posted by steve s on June 20, 2006 11:34 AM (e)

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.

Comment #106835

Posted by steve s on June 20, 2006 11:39 AM (e)

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.

Comment #106842

Posted by k.e. on June 20, 2006 12:01 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #106846

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on June 20, 2006 12:17 PM (e)

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.

Comment #106924

Posted by Gordon Hill on June 20, 2006 2:26 PM (e)

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.

Comment #107039

Posted by Robert Svensson on June 21, 2006 1:32 AM (e)

Hi

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

Be Well

Comment #107614

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 23, 2006 11:05 AM (e)

Pill Popper's Ghost wrote:

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?

Comment #107615

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 23, 2006 11:10 AM (e)

William Emba 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.

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

Comment #107656

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

[quote]Deal with it.[/quote]

guess what?

I studied probability for 3 years as both an undergrad at UCSB and a grad at Berkeley.

you’re simply wrong.

deal with it.

(oh and BTW, I lied - I only studied probability and statistics for 2 years)

look, you might as well have said:

“I’m not interested in your pathetic level of detail”

and we would take you just as seriously as we do now.

Comment #107660

Posted by gwangung on June 23, 2006 4:04 PM (e)

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.

Comment #107661

Posted by Lou FCD on June 23, 2006 4:05 PM (e)

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 am only interested in the opinions of biologists when it comes to biology. Deal with it.

Comment #107682

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 23, 2006 7:09 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

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.

Comment #107689

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 7:54 PM (e)

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

hey, I’m just following your own logic.

you’re simply wrong.

deal with it.

what difference does it make what you’re wrong about?

what are you? some kind of expert on all things wrong, or something?

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.

there. that better for ya?

Comment #107692

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 23, 2006 8:02 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

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

I took several, actually.

Sir_Toejam wrote:

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

Not measure-theoretic probability.

Sir_Toejam wrote:

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

That’s right.

Sir_Toejam wrote:

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

Did I say that?

Comment #107696

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 8:12 PM (e)

did you say that?

yup:

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

really, you’re building a strawman here by invoking “measure-theoretic probability”.

deal with it.

Comment #107698

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 23, 2006 8:32 PM (e)

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”?

Comment #107699

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 23, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

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 … ?

Comment #107701

Posted by Robert O'Brien on June 23, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

Lenny wrote:

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 … ?

Lenny:

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

Comment #107717

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 23, 2006 9:45 PM (e)

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”?

ahh, multiple pardons; for some strange reason I thought you were actually responding to something actually related to the topic of the contributing post.

I had no idea you were simply trolling, OT.

please, continue. I guess I’ll wait until you have anything to say on topic.

:p

Comment #107796

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 24, 2006 9:30 AM (e)

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

I see. So you’re just trolling, and can be safely ignored.

Got it.