The God thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr. GreyMan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
And re-reading it, your statement still doesn't make sense. The verb "reach" with the direct object "100% confidence interval" just doesn't make sense semantically with the how a confidence interval is defined.

A confidence interval isn't something you "reach."
Well, when I'm collecting data I calculate how long it will take to "reach" the desired confidence interval. When I am figuring out the photopeak for a given scintillator setup, for example, the longer the scintillator is under the radioactive source the more events are collected and the sharper the peak. I can calculate how long it will take to be 95% "sure" the photopeak is were I'm measuring it to be, or--to put it another way--when the desired confidence interval will be reached.


You wouldn't use a confidence interval for that, and saying "exactly how much more likely [something] is [than something else]" in a meaningful and easily-interpretable way is actually extremely difficult.

You could form a confidence interval for how much more likely something is than something else, though. For example, "A" is 9 to 12 times more likely than "B" with 95% confidence.
That's true, yes. I was playing fast and loose with the terms at that point because I wasn't sure of the level of my audience. I was just trying to get the point about the uncertainly knowledge across.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
To put on my Bayesian hat for a moment...

If you replace the words "confidence interval" with the words "posterior probability", then all of Mr. GreyMan's statements make sense, scientifically, statistically.

I'm sure that would help, but in working out what the prior is like (and the likelihood) , then you go through almost all of what one really does as a scientist and all the intricacies of whatever epistemology one wants to use. It seems to me that Greyman's formulation of doing science as a matter of falling into statistical ranges of some kind is not a adequate or even partial picture and adding in a gesture at epistemology doesn't clarify the picture. Perhaps an example from actual scientific work would help Greyman to get a handle on how he thinks epistemology and statistical ranges work in practice.
 
Last edited:

Mr. GreyMan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
I feel this is a little uncouth of me to crow on about, and I don't expect anyone to believe me on the internet, but I actually used statistical probably quite a bit in my PhD thesis work:
http://www.5colorcontrol.com/Plots/Taylor's Thesis-Full Draft Working.pdf

Now, I was studying physics, not statistics, but I did read quite a few papers on the subject (just a bit in chapter 7.2). And, I've no done anything on any subject since my December graduation. So, I'm not claiming I'm an expert, but I will say I have more than a passing familiarity with the practical applications of the subject matter.

That being said, when I was talking about epistemology and statistics and whatnot, I was--most assuredly--just waving my hands. I was not trying to write a peer review paper or even an email to my adviser.

I saw someone claiming that scientists made hard knowledge claims, and that it was theists that were more willing to accept inadequacy in understanding. I disagreed and made what I thought was a well-sounding wishy-washy hand-waving post about uncertainty in science. I through in a few wiki links out of habit more than anything else, and a couple of science quotes about uncertainty.

So, I'm not trying to backpedal and say what I was said was somehow correct in its usage of scientific terms or that I used statistical analysis properly to justify my points.

I didn't.

I was just trying to make a nice sounding post to point out that scientists don't claim to know much of anything, and certainly don't claim to have real "knowledge." That is--also--not to say that all theists claim to have a monopoly on the truth either. Nor is it to say that you guys shouldn't continue to correct my usage so we can all learn a little something.

You should.

All I am trying to say in this post is that I'm a little miffed after the 7 long years I put into my graduate work people seem to think I'm a simpleton when it comes to this kinda thing because of a few careless hand-waving posts I made on a writing website, when the overall point of those posts were NOT incorrect. So, call me a simpleton when it comes to epistemology(it's only a hobby), call me a bad writer(a learning disability cases me to write like a 5th grader), call me careless with my statistical lingo(only read that stuff on my own) but please don't say something like:
"Perhaps an example from actual scientific work would help Greyman to get a handle on how he thinks epistemology and statistical ranges work in practice. "
to me.

It will ruffle my feathers.

In Short:
I was just trying to up my post count to 50, since that seems to be the magic number.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
"Perhaps an example from actual scientific work would help Greyman to get a handle on how he thinks epistemology and statistical ranges work in practice. "
to me.

It will ruffle my feathers.

In Short:
I was just trying to up my post count to 50, since that seems to be the magic number.

I couldn't get the 11mg PDF to download properly. Perhaps you could summarize how you used epistemology and statistics in your PH. D paper?
 

Mr. GreyMan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
I couldn't get the 11mg PDF to download properly.
That's... unsettling....
I got it to download from this site on my friends computer. I don't know what could be wrong on your end. What browser do you use?

Perhaps you could summarize how you used epistemology and statistics in your PH. D paper?
Well--unless you count generic 'scientific method'--I don't do very much with the philosophy of epistemology. As I said in my last post, epistemology is more of a hobby for me than anything else (well, theology is the hobby, but epistemology is important to theology, IMO).
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Well, when I'm collecting data I calculate how long it will take to "reach" the desired confidence interval. When I am figuring out the photopeak for a given scintillator setup, for example, the longer the scintillator is under the radioactive source the more events are collected and the sharper the peak. I can calculate how long it will take to be 95% "sure" the photopeak is were I'm measuring it to be, or--to put it another way--when the desired confidence interval will be reached.

What you really mean is given an estimate of variance, you can calculate the required sample size for a 95% confidence interval to be as small as you want it to be. That's not "reaching 95% confidence," which as a phrasing doesn't actually make sense. You can't "reach" a confidence level. If you have a sample mean and a standard error, you can always calculate a 95% confidence interval, so there's nothing to "reach". What you're really doing is calculating the sample size you need to reach a small enough standard error.

I see now why that particular phrasing makes sense in your particular usage case, but it doesn't really make sense when talking about the definition of confidence intervals in general. Yes, if you decide beforehand how narrow you want your 95% confidence interval to be, you can meaningfully talk about "reaching" that particular confidence interval. I get what you meant now.

It's a quite common point of confusion when discussing sample size calculations with clients, explaining that they first have to decide what a "meaningful difference" is in their particular research paradigm, before I can actually tell them how many observations they need for a particular level of statistical power.

I was studying physics

That explains everything. :tongue ;)

All I am trying to say in this post is that I'm a little miffed after the 7 long years I put into my graduate work people seem to think I'm a simpleton when it comes to this kinda thing because of a few careless hand-waving posts I made on a writing website, when the overall point of those posts were NOT incorrect.

I never thought that, by the way. The "correct" interpretation of a confidence interval has some tricky nuances that are very often glossed over and misunderstood unless you're deeply involved in the field.

I nearly finished an BS in physics except for the lab work, and think I have a reasonable handle on it, but I'm sure my explanations of physics would be found lacking from the perspective of a physicist. :)

my December graduation

Congrats! I'm beginning my third year of PhD work in statistics.

That's... unsettling....
I got it to download from this site on my friends computer. I don't know what could be wrong on your end. What browser do you use?

Worked fine for me with Safari.
 
Last edited:

Cornelius Gault

New writer since 07/2012.
Banned
Registered
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
378
Reaction score
35
Location
Louisville, KY
I don't know if there's a god or not. I do know that the Christian god doesn't exist because Jesus never existed, the Bible is hopelessly flawed. The Jews and Muslims are wrong, too. [sorry, I messed up the quote formatting]
Well, I won't be the one who starts a troll war, having read some of the other responses.

... however ...

Blanket statements like "Jesus didn't exist" really irritate me when coming from uninformed people. Please read "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel or at least admit that you are uninformed. Please. If you don't wish to hear the evidence, then you can continue to be ignorant.

There is more evidence and documents that Jesus existed (as a real historical person) than Shakespeare, Socrates and other famous sages of the past. Most people would agree that those people existed. It's not just my opinion. The difference is that believing that those people existed doesn't compel you to change your life, like Jesus can.

AGAIN, no troll war on this - this could be an extremely long and heated thread (and I don't think that was the Original Poster's intention), so I just put in my two cents worth, as the Original Poster suggested.
 
Last edited:

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
I don't know if there's a god or not. I do know that the Christian god doesn't exist because Jesus never existed, the Bible is hopelessly flawed. The Jews and Muslims are wrong, too. [sorry, I messed up the quote formatting]
Well, I won't be the one who starts a troll war, having read some of the other responses.

... however ...

Blanket statements like "Jesus didn't exist" really irritate me when coming from uninformed people. Please read "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel or at least admit that you are uninformed. Please. If you don't wish to hear the evidence, then you can continue to be ignorant.

There is more evidence and documents that Jesus existed (as a real historical person) than Shakespeare, Socrates and other famous sages of the past. Most people would agree that those people existed. It's not just my opinion. The difference is that believing that those people existed doesn't compel you to change your life, like Jesus can.

AGAIN, no troll war on this - this could be an extremely long and heated thread (and I don't think that was the Original Poster's intention), so I just put in my two cents worth, as the Original Poster suggested.


The existence of Jesus in any particular form (I myself like the image of a comically radical Pharisee, but one's mileage with Jesus may vary) is not necessarily a big deal for finding the Jesus traditions interesting.

After all
Apollo probably didn't exist and wasn't a sage, but
Rilke thought the sight of his torso ought to make you change your life. Warning: Poetry follows:
Archaic Torso of Apollo

We cannot know his legendary head
with eyes like ripening fruit. And yet his torso
is still suffused with brilliance from inside,
like a lamp, in which his gaze, now turned to low,

gleams in all its power. Otherwise
the curved breast could not dazzle you so, nor could
a smile run through the placid hips and thighs
to that dark center where procreation flared.

Otherwise this stone would seem defaced
beneath the translucent cascade of the shoulders
and would not glisten like a wild beast’s fur:

would not, from all the borders of itself,
burst like a star: for here there is no place
that does not see you. You must change your life.





Rainer Maria Rilke

(from http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/archaic-torso-of-apollo/ )
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
That's... unsettling....
I got it to download from this site on my friends computer. I don't know what could be wrong on your end. What browser do you use?

Well--unless you count generic 'scientific method'--I don't do very much with the philosophy of epistemology. As I said in my last post, epistemology is more of a hobby for me than anything else (well, theology is the hobby, but epistemology is important to theology, IMO).

I don't see much use in epistemology and theology if they end up showing that scientific work produces no knowledge.
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
You can't "reach" a confidence level. If you have a sample mean and a standard error, you can always calculate a 95% confidence interval, so there's nothing to "reach". What you're really doing is calculating the sample size you need to reach a small enough standard error. . . .


It's a quite common point of confusion when discussing sample size calculations with clients, explaining that they first have to decide what a "meaningful difference" is in their particular research paradigm, before I can actually tell them how many observations they need for a particular level of statistical power.

Well stated. These are common issues in medical research.
 

Mr. GreyMan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
I don't see much use in epistemology and theology if they end up showing that scientific work produces no knowledge.

Scientific and mathematical work have shown that humans can't obtain true knowledge. As in, we can't be 100% sure of anything.
I blame Gödel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Tao following its own inner nature is equivalent to animals (and humans and whoever) following their instincts. There is no effort or thought put into it, Tao just does. Or at least, that's what I was trying to say. :)
So, if we were to label you, would you say you're closest to a Spiritual Atheist?

Because that is one world view I've never really been able to wrap my brain around.
Congrats! I'm beginning my third year of PhD work in statistics.
Thank you, and good luck ;)
I'm getting out of research myself, and just got a job teaching high school.
I feel I was unsuited to be a scientist.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Scientific and mathematical work have shown that humans can't obtain true knowledge. As in, we can't be 100% sure of anything.
I blame Gödel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Yet in day-to-day life we are so sure of things (far more than 100% sure since we stake our lives on the day-to-day world continually without thinking) that we don't bother checking on crucial stuff except maybe occasionally. I don't think Godel has much to do with how most people or most scientists spend their time and nothing at all to do with assessing the reliability of reports about the real world.
 

Mr. GreyMan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
We all make choices and stick to them, yes.

For example, I--for one--am very sure that everything around me is real. However, if I was to wake up in a Matrix pod that "assuredness" would be shaken to its core. I oprate as if I was "100% sure," but the truth is I'm not. We all believe strongly in something, but those beliefs are normally based on something. We believe 'because.'

There are exceptions, of course. True Believer syndrome shows us that people's beliefs are occasionally deeply rooted, but I hope we can all agree that such metal states are abnormal.

Regardless, I'm not trying to say people can't have conviction in their beliefs, or that they can't be right and righteous.

They can.

The point is that they'll never be able to prove it beyond doubt.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Scientific and mathematical work have shown that humans can't obtain true knowledge. As in, we can't be 100% sure of anything.
I blame Gödel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems


So, if we were to label you, would you say you're closest to a Spiritual Atheist?

Because that is one world view I've never really been able to wrap my brain around.

Thank you, and good luck ;)
I'm getting out of research myself, and just got a job teaching high school.
I feel I was unsuited to be a scientist.

You've just hit one of my pet peeves. That isn't what Godel's Incompleteness Theorem means.

Symbolic Logic has among its various concepts, the ideas of Validity and Provability.

A statement is Valid, iff (short for if and only if), it is true in all possible worlds. In particular a statement is valid given a set of premises, if there is no way to have the premises be true and the statement false.

A statement is Provable if you can construct a logical proof for it. Provability has a complex definition wherein exactly what can be done in a proper proof is spelled out as a set of allowable rules.

A set of axioms is said to be consistent if the axioms cannot ever prove a contradiction (that is, if you can never create a proof for a statement A and a proof for the statement not A given the set of axioms).

A set of axioms is said to be complete if every valid deduction from those axioms is provable.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem states that if one has a set of axioms that is at least as powerful as the axioms of arithmetic, then if the axioms are consistent they will not be complete and if they are complete they will not be consistent.

The proof of Godel's Theorem is a machinery heavy form of a diagonalization proof wherein he constructs a method of encoding logical statements as numbers and proceeds to create a number that encodes the logical expression for "This number does not represent a provable statement."

It can however be proven that arithmetic is consistent (you just can't do it in arithmetic itself).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentzen's_consistency_proof

When Godel's theorem was first discovered it freaked people out, but all it states is that there are statements that are true that we can't prove. It doesn't invalidate mathematical proof; it simply states that it's a tool that does not do everything.

No tool can do everything.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
I oprate as if I was "100% sure," but the truth is I'm not.

Then I prefer the operational (or functional) idea of knowledge -- ie if I'm willing to operate as if the
circumstance had complete certainty (which I do for everyday objects to a degree that seems far beyond 100%)
then that is something I know. For me, scientific work simply extends the everyday world of functional knowledge.

So for example, since I know how tree-rings work in the everyday world, I can extend tree-ring chronology (as functional knowledge) back as far as I can find trees and derive exact yearly dates for trees and events clear back to say the spring of 1628 BC (the probable time of the explosion of Thera in the Aegean). Now note that the date is known (functionally) quite exactly. And you can see logically why this has to be exact. What's not so exact is the association with the explosion of Thera. BUT note that for the idea of association to mean anything in this case, the tree-ring dates have to be exact (and known, functionally, 100% or more).
 

Mr. GreyMan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
My flippant response referring to Gödel did not state what people seem to think it stated. While I did write it to imply certain things, I certainly made not truth claims in it. It was meant to be as silly as blaming Al Gore for causing global warming.
A statement is Valid, iff (short for if and only if), it is true in all possible worlds. In particular a statement is valid given a set of premises, if there is no way to have the premises be true and the statement false.
Right.
Yet--unless I am deeply mistaken--Tarski's undefinability theorem shows us that we cannot know if the premises are true without a metasystem. And, we can't know if the premises of the metasystem are true without another metasystem, and so on.
Arithmetic has been proven consistant, but only by using a metasystem.

Regardless, your point that no tool can do everything is wholly what I was trying to articulate. I was just also trying to add that not amount of tools can do everything.

Or--at least--based on what we correctly understand about tools they can't.
 

Crayonz

Tribal Flame Warden Ducky
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
1,489
Reaction score
364
Location
Neither here nor there. Or the Castle.
So, if we were to label you, would you say you're closest to a Spiritual Atheist?
Not at all. ;) That would give the impression that Tao is nothing more than an intellectual idea, pretty to look at but not very useful. I will point out that, unlike what I found on spiritual atheism, Taoists do believe that Tao created the Universe and All Things.

"Tao existed before words and names, before heaven and earth, before the ten thousand things.
It is the unlimited father and mother of all limited things."
- the Tao Te Ching​

Annnddd now I'm done, since I'm pretty sure any more explaining will just confuse things.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Not at all. ;) That would give the impression that Tao is nothing more than an intellectual idea, pretty to look at but not very useful. I will point out that, unlike what I found on spiritual atheism, Taoists do believe that Tao created the Universe and All Things.

"Tao existed before words and names, before heaven and earth, before the ten thousand things.
It is the unlimited father and mother of all limited things."
- the Tao Te Ching​

Annnddd now I'm done, since I'm pretty sure any more explaining will just confuse things.

You mean the Tao that can be taught is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
My flippant response referring to Gödel did not state what people seem to think it stated. While I did write it to imply certain things, I certainly made not truth claims in it. It was meant to be as silly as blaming Al Gore for causing global warming.
Right.
Yet--unless I am deeply mistaken--Tarski's undefinability theorem shows us that we cannot know if the premises are true without a metasystem. And, we can't know if the premises of the metasystem are true without another metasystem, and so on.
Arithmetic has been proven consistant, but only by using a metasystem.

Regardless, your point that no tool can do everything is wholly what I was trying to articulate. I was just also trying to add that not amount of tools can do everything.

Or--at least--based on what we correctly understand about tools they can't.

Tarski's theorem again puts a limitation on the ability to define truth within a formal system. But the human mind isn't limited to formal systems. It is perfectly capable of saying that every level of logic and metalogic operates using the same structure of deduction and whenever necessary it can shift any logic problem to the next formal level up.

The reality is that whenever we're talking about formal logic (unless we're being very sophisticated) we're using the standard methods of deduction (modus ponens, modus tollens etc) in the standard proof structure.

In rare cases we have to be careful and exact about which system we're talking in, but we can for all but the most pathological cases jump up enough metalevels to formulate our statements and prove, disprove, or prove them undecidable.
 

Mr. GreyMan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
67
Reaction score
3
Tarski's theorem again puts a limitation on the ability to define truth within a formal system. But the human mind isn't limited to formal systems. It is perfectly capable of saying that every level of logic and metalogic operates using the same structure of deduction and whenever necessary it can shift any logic problem to the next formal level up.

The reality is that whenever we're talking about formal logic (unless we're being very sophisticated) we're using the standard methods of deduction (modus ponens, modus tollens etc) in the standard proof structure.

In rare cases we have to be careful and exact about which system we're talking in, but we can for all but the most pathological cases jump up enough metalevels to formulate our statements and prove, disprove, or prove them undecidable.
Well, when you make the jump from formal logic to reality you have to address whether or not one can be described by the other.

All of what we are discussing only has relevance in the real word if you are assuming that reality is--itself--logical. As in, whether or not reality can be perfectly mapped into a logical/mathmatical system, or if certain aspects of reality are fundamentally "illogical."

Many physicists and mathematicians have done quite a bit of work justifying the use of math to describe reality.


I--personally--believe reality to be logical, but I've got no way to prove it.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Well, when you make the jump from formal logic to reality you have to address whether or not one can be described by the other.
All of what we are discussing only has relevance in the real word if you are assuming that reality is--itself--logical. As in, whether or not reality can be perfectly mapped into a logical/mathmatical system, or if certain aspects of reality are fundamentally "illogical."

Many physicists and mathematicians have done quite a bit of work justifying the use of math to describe reality.


I--personally--believe reality to be logical, but I've got no way to prove it.

I don't think that's quite an accurate way of looking at it to my mind. We model reality mathematically. We then process the results of that modelling using the tools of math. Because mathematical deduction never produces false results from true premises we preserve the same level of truth. So in so far as our premises accurately represent realty our conclusions will also accurately represent reality. This is how math is useful to the sciences, it forms a safe bridge between beginning and end.

So in so far as F = ma is true and in so far as the force of gravity is accurately modeled by F = GMm/r[SUP]2[/SUP], we can use the truth preserving abilities of mathematical deduction to conclude that

a = GM/r[SUP]2[/SUP]

With the same confidence we had in our premises. Using this we can test the resulting conclusion against the hard cold anvil of reality and see how true our ideas are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.