Mr. Guru
Brian Malcolm poobah@frodo.com
Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:22:19 -0800 (00920604139, 000c01be6685$15fdca30$0700640b@raphael.sttls1.wa.home.com)
SHERMAN
So even though you contacted me first, unsolicited and against my express
wishes as posted numerous times to the errancy list, and though you sent me
problems which I answered, you refuse to answer my questions.
How about this for Vegas, we cut the cards one time for $5,000. What are the
odds you will return home $5,000 poorer?
POOBAH
Mr. Sherman,
This will be my final word on this subject unless you actually present some
new information. It will be long, however, as I wish to expose a dishonest
claim you make above.
As to your first claim, yes I contacted you first unsolicited. If that was a
problem, however, you should have mentioned it at the time, not after your
deceptions had been exposed. This is called being evasive, and I leave it to
the readers to judge why you feel this evasion necessary.
Secondly, I have no desire to cut cards with you, where my odds of going
home $5000 poorer would be 1:1. I think my odds would be much better in
poker, thank you very much, and it was you who suggested the poker
challenge. Yet again you evade the issue when confronted.
Finally, I must take strong issue with your claim "you sent me problems
which I answered." I have seen no answer to ANY of my problems. I will list
them below along with the only "substantive" answer I have received from
you, and once again I will leave it to the readers to decide whether you are
being dishonest or just have a poor memory in this case. Here is each reply
I have received from you, in order, with your signature & responded text
snipped:
SHERMAN
====================
> > So you are not going to answer my question to you and thus demonstrate >
> that > > you are qualified as a statistician?
====================
> 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.
====================
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.
====================
And finally:
So even though you contacted me first, unsolicited and against my express
wishes as posted numerous times to the errancy list, and though you sent me
problems which I answered, you refuse to answer my questions.
How about this for Vegas, we cut the cards one time for $5,000. What are the
odds you will return home $5,000 poorer?
====================
POOBAH
I think the only question these responses answer would be the one of whether
you are a broken record or not. Here are the questions I have asked you that
I feel have not received an adequate response. I leave it to the reader to
decide whether the above constitutes an adequate response, a
miscommunication, or outright deception & evasion on your part.
Once again, I apologize for the length, but the claim that Mr. Sherman has
answered anything is absurd.
POOBAH
====================
Well, the fact that Mr. Sherman can't tell the difference between "<" and
">" says much here; his "equation" essentially says that the probability
could 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's claim of expertise in
probability be taken seriously when one can't even properly manipulate the
symbols?
====================
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.
====================
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.
====================
Finally, if you are this inept with regards to probability, is there any
reason we should believe your claims regarding your expertise with
archeology, astronomy, et.al.?
====================
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?
====================
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.
====================
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?
====================
Can you tell me what Bayes Theorem is?
====================
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?
====================
POOBAH
I will reiterate; my position does not depend on my ability to understand &
calculate probabilities; yours does. Even so, I have demonstrated that
skill, you have not, and I have demonstrated that your answers to Spark's
are not satisfactory.
So I ask one last time, given your inability to back up your claim to being
skilled in probability, why should we give credence to any other claim you
make? If you are unable to explain how you reached your "prophecy
probabilities" and are unaware (and evidently unable to answer) of the
objections to them, why should we take you seriously on this matter, or when
you claim expertise in mathematics/probability, the natural > > > > >
sciences, logic, Bible exegesis > > > > > and understanding, and astronomy
and astronomical theory? Is my response unreasonable, and if so why?
B.