Mr. Guru
Brian Malcolm poobah@frodo.com
Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:48:41 -0800 (00920598521, 000201be6678$010a1820$0700640b@raphael.sttls1.wa.home.com)
SHERMAN
So you are not going to:
1) Answer either of my problems/questions
2) Challenge me to Poker in Vegas
3) Expound on your qualifications as a mathematician other than to give me
riddles old as the hills
But you are the official "filter" for debaters with Mr. Till regarding
statistical analysis and probability, is that right?
Good day, sir and goodbye.
POOBAH
Mr. Sherman,
I am happy to answer any of your questions if I have any assurance you will
be able to respond with the same level of detail & analysis I put into my
replies. So far I haven't seen it. I would be happy to make a deal that if I
deal with your "martian question" you would finally show some expertise on
this subject and deal with objections to your prophecy calculations, but I
have no reason to believe you have the expertise required; what evidence
have you given that you have any ability to rationally debate this subject?
Can you give me any assurance that if I answer your questions you will be
able to rationally defend your prophecy calculations?
As for my qualifications, I have a master's degree in mathematics and
computer science from Loyola University in Chicago in 1991. Further, I
offered you "new riddles," but you seem uninterested in actually
demonstrating rather than asserting. Let's start small. Can you tell me what
Bayes Theorem is?
If you would like to play poker in Las Vegas, I would be more than happy to
oblige. My time is constrained at the moment as I am caring for my wife and
my newborn daughter, but in six months I would be happy to play you. The
stakes would have to be high enough to cover my travel expenses and a
reasonable return on my time. Say a $5000 No-Limit Texas Hold'em Freezeout?
Finally, I am no official filter for anyone, but I think I have a reasonable
ability to detect bunk when I hear it. Perhaps I am wrong; have you
demonstrated any expertise in probability at all? Can you point me to where
such a demonstration occurred?
I will make my point again: given that you cannot answer simple questions on
probability, why should anyone take you seriously when you claim expertise
in the field. Given that you cannot answer simple questions on probability,
why should anyone take your "probability calculations" seriously when you
provide none of the work or assumptions required to reach those assumptions?
I feel I have dealt with each & every one of your objections, regardless of
how trivial. Can you say the same?
There is no need for you to respond to this e-mail; it has been forwarded to
the readers of errancy. I leave it to them to decide who has dealt fairly in
this regard.
B.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matt [mailto:MSherman@modimes.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 11:29 AM
To: 'Brian Malcolm'
Subject: RE: Mr. Guru
SHERMAN
So you are not going to:
1) Answer either of my problems/questions
2) Challenge me to Poker in Vegas
3) Expound on your qualifications as a mathematician other than to give me
riddles old as the hills
But you are the official "filter" for debaters with Mr. Till regarding
statistical analysis and probability, is that right?
Good day, sir and goodbye.
Matt Sherman 007
Bacon Number = 3
Connery Number = 1
JC Number = 0
> ----------
> From: Brian Malcolm[SMTP:poobah@frodo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 2:12 PM
> To: Sherman, Matt
> Cc: errancy@infidels.org
> Subject: RE: Mr. Guru
>
> Mr. Sherman,
>
> My qualifications are not in question here, further I never claimed
> expertise in statistics. I am not the one trying to present calculations
> without proof who has shown no ability to make the calculations required.
> If
> I answer your "Martian riddle" (which I have never seen) would you in turn
> actually demonstrate the expertise you claimed? Would you actually
> demonstrate that you are aware of the counter-arguments to your "prophecy
> calculations"? I fear not, as I have no faith that you doing any more than
> parroting information found in a book.
>
> I tell you what, since you think the pancake example is "old news"
> (although
> it was not my example, I simply showed that I was capable of answering it
> and properly manipulate mathematical symbols, two skills you have thus far
> failed to demonstrate) *I* will give you four problems of increasing
> complexity, none of which you are likely to have seen before. All will
> involve calculating probabilities, and using conditional probabilities,
> two
> skills you must show competency in before we can accept any claims by you
> without calculations on your part. The final two will use poker as a
> medium,
> and I guarantee that if you can answer those, there isn't a person alive
> who
> won't admit you have expertise in the area of probability. If you show
> even
> an ability to be conversant with the problems, we can then discuss the
> calculations for your probabilities, how they were derived, if they are
> valid, and if the verses in question are actually examples of fulfilled
> prophecies.
>
> If you are interested, I will direct you to a website containing the four
> problems.
>
> Deal?
>
> B.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sherman, Matt [mailto:MSherman@modimes.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 9:23 AM
> To: 'Brian Malcolm'
> Subject: RE: Mr. Guru
>
> SHERMAN
> So you are not going to answer my question to you and thus demonstrate
> that
> you are qualified as a statistician or try my Martian riddle? Surely your
> pancake question and the other is old news, as we both know.
>
> Matt Sherman 007
>
> Bacon Number = 3
> Connery Number = 1
> JC Number = 0
>
> > ----------
> > From: Brian Malcolm[SMTP:poobah@frodo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 12:19 PM
> > To: Sherman, Matt
> > Cc: errancy@infidels.org
> > Subject: RE: Mr. Guru
> >
> > Mr. Sherman, I listed 4 reasons why I felt your "prophecy calculations"
> to
> > be groundless. Further, I demonstrated knowledge in the field in
> question,
> > which you did not. If you answer these four concerns, there might be a
> > reason to examine the information again. In order to discover those
> > concerns, you must actually read the e-mail. Since a mistake of mine
> > confused the issue, I will reiterate those concerns:
> >
> > ================
> > Mr. Till, I would not waste any time debating this individual. He claims
> > to
> > be an expert in probability, but cannot answer two basic probability
> > questions. He offers "probabilities" of fulfilling prophecies, but he :
> > a) demonstrated no expertise that would allow us to accept his results
> > without proof of calculation
> > b) begs the question of Biblical inerrancy in regards to the events
> > described
> > c) begs the question of the prophecies in question actually being
> > prophecies, and most importantly
> > d) "calculates probabilities" when the actual factors involved may be
> > impossible to determine. I use "calculate" here loosely, as I feel
> > confident
> > he copied these figures from some book, probably McDowell's.
> > ================
> >
> > Further, as I mentioned, if you cannot answer basic probability
> questions,
> > then your claims of being an expert in probability is false, and I
> imagine
> > deliberately so. You can refute this claim by either showing my answers
> to
> > be incorrect, or as I also mentioned if you had actually read my e-mail
> > instead of dashing off a one-line response:
> >
> > ================
> > If you wish to show some expertise on this subject, Mr. Sherman, perhaps
> > you
> > can deal with some of the objections raised by various experts to the
> type
> > of calculations you demonstrated, and explain why those objections do
> not
> > apply. I will not help you by outlining those problems, because an
> expert
> > who has studied the issue will already be aware of them.
> > ================
> >
> > There are good, rational reasons for rejecting the calculations you use
> in
> > your prophecies, and since you have demonstrated no expertise, you could
> > prove me wrong & demonstrate expertise by dealing with those objections
> to
> > your calculations. As I said, I will not help you by describing those
> > objections, because if you are an expert who has carefully examined
> every
> > side of the issue, those objections, or at least some of them, should be
> > obvious to you, as should be your refutations.
> >
> > If you cannot do this, I submit once again Mr. Sherman that you are a
> liar
> > when you claim expertise in probability, and given that, why should we
> > accept any of your other claims?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sherman, Matt [mailto:MSherman@modimes.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 6:25 AM
> > To: 'Brian Malcolm'
> > Subject: RE: Mr. Guru
> >
> > SHERMAN
> > So you are not going to answer my question to you and thus demonstrate
> > that
> > you are qualified as a statistician?
> >
> > Matt Sherman 007
> >
> > Bacon Number = 3
> > Connery Number = 1
> > JC Number = 0
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Brian Malcolm[SMTP:poobah@frodo.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 5:28 PM
> > > To: 'spark'; errancy@infidels.org
> > > Cc: Sherman, Matt
> > > Subject: RE: Mr. Guru
> > >
> > > POOBAH
> > > I am not surprised that Mr. Sherman could not answer these basic
> > > probability
> > > questions, as he certainly hasn't shown any ability to answer any
> other
> > > question when evidence & logical argument is required.
> > >
> > > Mr. Till, I would not waste any time debating this individual. He
> claims
> > > to
> > > be an expert in probability, and cannot answer two basic probability
> > > questions. He offers "probabilities" of fulfilling prophecies, but he
> a)
> > > demonstrated no expertise that would allow us to accept his results
> > > without
> > > proof of calcuation a) is begging the question of Biblical Inerrancy
> b)
> > > begging the question of the prophecies in question actually being
> > > prophecies, and most importantly c) "calculating" "probabilities" when
> > the
> > > actual factors involved are impossible to determine. I use "calculate"
> > > loosely, here, as I am sure he copied these figures from some book,
> > > probably
> > > McDowell's.
> > >
> > > Of course, a debate might highlight the utter lack of evidence
> defenders
> > > of
> > > inerrancy possess, but I fear that Mr. Sherman appears to be "a few
> face
> > > cards short of a deck," and his utter inability to answer any question
> > > would
> > > probably be discounted by an observer as an aberation.
> > >
> > > Mr. Sherman, I may not be a Bible scholar, but I am an experienced
> > > software
> > > developer & consultant with an advanced degree in mathematics who has
> at
> > > several points in his life supported himself by playing poker. I
> daresay
> > I
> > > know a little bit about probability, and if you cannot answer the
> > > questions
> > > below, then when you claim you are an expert in probability, you sir
> are
> > a
> > > liar.
> > >
> > > There is no need to answer your questions regarding the probabilities
> of
> > > prophecy for the reasons I gave above. The very fact that you have
> shown
> > > no
> > > knowledge of probability makes your figures suspect.
> > >
> > > I will answer the questions below to show that I have more
> understanding
> > > of
> > > probability that you.
> > >
> > > SPARK
> > > "There are 3 pancakes in a hat: one is brown on both sides; another
> is
> > > golden on both sides; and the 3rd is brown on one side and golden on
> the
> > > other. You pull one
> > > out of the hat at random and see that it is brown on the side you are
> > > looking at. What is the probability of the other side being brown?"
> > >
> > > SHERMAN
> > > 0 > [Probability of brown side on obverse side of pancake] < 1
> > >
> > > POOBAH
> > > Well, the fact that Mr. Sherman can't tell the difference between "<"
> > and
> > > ">" says much here; his "equation" essentially says that the
> probability
> > > must be any negative number. Perhaps he can explain to us what a
> > negative
> > > probability is.
> > >
> > > Of course, I am sure he meant "0 < p < 1", but Mr. Till's point about
> > > grammar is even more applicable here; how can one be an expert in
> > > probability when one can't even properly manipulate the symbols?
> > >
> > > In answer to Sparks question, there are three ways to draw a brown
> side;
> > > one
> > > on the half & half pancake, and two on the brown pancake. Since only
> one
> > > of
> > > the three ways has a golden side opposite, the probability is 2/3 that
> > the
> > > other side is brown, or odds of 2:1.
> > >
> > > SPARK
> > > "You and 2 other men are in the same jail cell. One day, the warden
> > comes
> > > and tells the 3 of you that, tomorrow, 1 of you is going to be
> executed
> > > and
> > > the other 2 are going to be set free. Later on, you approach the
> warden
> > > by
> > > yourself and ask him to tell you who is going to be executed. The
> > warden
> > > declines your request, saying he is not permitted to disclose that
> > > information. In desperation, you beg him to at least tell you the
> name
> > of
> > > 1
> > > person who will be set free. The warden gives in and tells you that
> > > Charles Manson (one of the other prisoners) will be set free. You
> > leave
> > > the warden feeling even more nervous than before, thinking that the
> > > probability of you being exectued just went up. Did it really go up?"
> > >
> > > SHERMAN
> > > Did it "really go up" between the sentence on execution passing the
> > court
> > > and the discussion with the warden? No.
> > >
> > > POOBAH
> > > All's I can say here is that if Mr. Sherman really believes this, I
> > would
> > > really like to play poker with him. As an "expert," Mr. Sherman, I
> > suggest
> > > you study the subject of conditional probability and Bayes Theorem.
> > >
> > > This problem is normally formulated as "The Monty Hall Problem" in
> which
> > > you
> > > are selecting a door with a prize, and where you are shown a door and
> > > given
> > > a chance to change your mind.
> > >
> > > The answer in this particular case hinges on the perversity of the
> > warden;
> > > if you were not to be executed, would he have actually told you? If
> the
> > > warden was "perverse" and would never have told you your fate, then
> your
> > > chance of being executed, *given that you know Mr. Manson will not be*
> > > remains at 1/3. This is because we know that in the case where you are
> > to
> > > die, he would have said someone else, and in the case where you were
> not
> > > to
> > > die, he still would have told you someone else, so no new information
> > > about
> > > yourself has been gained (of course, it's a different story for Mr.
> > > McViegh
> > > (sp?) next to you...)
> > >
> > > If, on the other hand, the warden was "kind" enough that he might have
> > > randomly told you your fate if you were not the one to die, then
> > > unfortunately the odds of you being the "dead man walking" have gone
> up,
> > > *given that you know that Mr. Manson will not die*. The reason is as
> > > follows. We assume an equal probability for each prisoner, so a priori
> > > there
> > > is a 1/3 chance you will die, and 2/3 you will not. We know that the
> 1/3
> > > that your number is up, the warden would tell you someone else's name,
> > but
> > > the 2/3 time you are safe, he would tell you someone else's name 50%
> of
> > > the
> > > time. So, in other words, if you were not to die, he would tell you
> > > someone
> > > else's name 1/3 of the time. So given he told you someone else's name,
> > the
> > > odds are even (1/3 to 1/3) that you will die, so your probability has
> > gone
> > > up to 50%, or 1:1 odds.
> > >
> > > I submit, Mr. Sherman, that because I have demonstrated a knowledge of
> > > probability and you have not, that your claims about probabilities of
> > > prophecies are groundless, as you have demonstrated no knowledge of
> how
> > to
> > > calculate them. Until you demonstrate a knowledge of probability,
> there
> > is
> > > no reason to take you seriously on this subject.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sherman, Matt [mailto:MSherman@modimes.org]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 10:57 AM
> > > To: 'spark'
> > > Subject: RE: Mr. Guru
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Matt Sherman 007
> > >
> > > Bacon Number = 3
> > > Connery Number = 1
> > > JC Number = 0
> > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > From: spark[SMTP:spark@igs.net]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 12:03 PM
> > > > To: errancy@infidels.org
> > > > Cc: Sherman, Matt
> > > > Subject: Mr. Guru
> > > >
> > > > SHERMAN
> > > > Now, what I am skilled in is mathematics/probability, the natural
> > > > sciences, logic, Bible exegesis
> > > > and understanding, and astronomy and astronomical theory...
> > > >
> > > > SPARK
> > > > Wow, you're a skillful man! But, if you are so skilled in logic, to
> > > > pick one of your many talents,
> > > > could you tell us how you arrived at this conclusion: "The Bible is
> > > > inerrant (in its original
> > > > manuscripts...)!"
> > > >
> > > > Now, we'll test your mathematics/probability skill. Here is an easy
> > one
> > > > for you:
> > > >
> > > > "There are 3 pancakes in a hat: one is brown on both sides; another
> > is
> > > > golden on both sides;
> > > > and the 3rd is brown on one side and golden on the other. You pull
> > one
> > > > out of the hat at random
> > > > and see that it is brown on the side you are looking at. What is
> the
> > > > probability of the other side
> > > > being brown?"
> > > >
> > > SHERMAN
> > > 0 > [Probability of brown side on obverse side of pancake] < 1
> > >
> > > > Ah, but to pass this test, you have to get this one correct as well:
> > > >
> > > > "You and 2 other men are in the same jail cell. One day, the warden
> > > > comes and tells the
> > > > 3 of you that, tomorrow, 1 of you is going to be executed and the
> > other
> > > > 2 are going to be set
> > > > free. Later on, you approach the warden by yourself and ask him to
> > tell
> > > > you who is going to be
> > > > executed. The warden declines your request, saying he is not
> > permitted
> > > > to disclose that
> > > > information. In desperation, you beg him to at least tell you the
> > name
> > > > of 1 person who will
> > > > be set free. The warden gives in and tells you that Charles Manson
> > (one
> > > > of the other prisoners)
> > > > will be set free. You leave the warden feeling even more nervous
> than
> > > > before, thinking that
> > > > the probability of you being exectued just went up. Did it really
> go
> > > > up?"
> > > >
> > > SHERMAN
> > > Did it "really go up" between the sentence on execution passing the
> > court
> > > and the discussion with the warden? No.
> > >
> > > Now try mine...what are the calculated odds of finding the following
> > > prophecies fulfilled by chance in one person:
> > >
> > > Prophecy #1. Micah 5:2
> > > "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the
> thousands
> > > of
> > > Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in
> > > Israel,
> > > Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting."
> > > What is the probability of this prophecy being fulfilled by any one
> man?
> > > To
> > > determine this, the average population of Bethlehem from the time of
> > Micah
> > > until now would need to be known, as well as the average population of
> > the
> > > earth during the same time period. Stoner (Science Speaks, p. 101-102)
> > > came
> > > up with a ratio of 1 man in 280,000 has been born in Bethlehem. It may
> > be
> > > expressed as 1 man in 2.8 x 105 was born in Bethlehem.
> > > Prophecy #2. Malachi 3:1
> > > "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me."
> > > The question here is how many men the world over has had a forerunner
> to
> > > prepare his way? A very conservative estimate would be 1 in 10,000.
> > > Since, according to the Scriptures, this was a special messenger of
> God,
> > > this estimate is indeed conservative. The estimate may be expressed as
> 1
> > > in
> > > 103.
> > > Prophecy #3. Zechariah 9:9
> > > "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
> > > Behold, your King is coming to you...Lowly and riding on a donkey, A
> > colt,
> > > the foal of a donkey."
> > > One man in how many has entered Jerusalem as a ruler riding on a colt,
> > the
> > > foal of a donkey? Since most rulers entering Jerusalem would do so in
> a
> > > more
> > > dignified manner, an estimate of 1 man in 103 will be used.
> > > Prophecy #4. Zechariah 13:6
> > > "And one will say to him, What are these wounds between your arms?
> Then
> > he
> > > will answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my
> friends."
> > > How many men in all the world since Zechariah have been betrayed by
> his
> > > friends and then, as a result, was wounded in the hands? This would
> > appear
> > > to be a quite rare circumstance but in order to be as conservative as
> > > possible, the estimate will be set at 1 man in 1000, or 1 in 103.
> > > Prophecy #5. Zechariah 11:12
> > > "Then I said to them, If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and
> > if
> > > not, refrain. So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of
> silver."
> > > Of the people betrayed, how many were betrayed by exactly thirty
> pieces
> > of
> > > silver. The estimate of one man in 10,000 will be used. It is
> expressed
> > as
> > > 1
> > > in 104.
> > > Prophecy #6. Zechariah 11:13
> > > "And the Lord said to me, Throw it to the potter; that princely price
> > they
> > > set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into
> the
> > > house of the Lord for the potter."
> > > This is a very specific prophecy. How many men, after receiving a
> bribe
> > > for
> > > the betrayal of a friend, returned the money only to have it refused
> and
> > > then the money used to purchase a field from the potter? An estimate
> of
> > 1
> > > in
> > > 10,000 will be used, or, 1 man in 105.
> > > Prophecy #7. Isaiah 53:7
> > > "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth;
> He
> > > was
> > > led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is
> > > silent, So He opened not His mouth."
> > > How many men, after being oppressed and afflicted and is on trial for
> > his
> > > life will make no defense for himself, even though he is innocent?
> This
> > > would be quite rare no doubt. The estimate of one man in 1000 will be
> > > used.
> > > It is expressed as 1 in 103.
> > > Prophecy #8. Psalm 22:16
> > > "For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has
> > enclosed
> > > Me. They pierced My hands and My feet."
> > > One man in how many since the time of David has been crucified? At one
> > > time
> > > this was a common method of execution, therefore the probability of
> one
> > > man
> > > in 1000, or 1 in 103 will be used.
> > >
> > > > Good luck!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>