Calling out KellyJay

Originally posted by Nemesio
You haven't offered this type of reasoning up explicitly, but it's a consequence of your view.
That is, if we take the dinosaur skull with lots of sharp pointy teeth and can't say with great,
great certainty that it ate meat (because of all of the experiences we have with animals with
similar or identical morphology), then the line for 'factness' is so b , likely, 50/50, unlikely, or highly unlikely? And,
2) Why do you think so?

Nemesio

You are correct I have not offered this type of reasoning, but I'll add
the word PERIOD, not at all have I done that! I find it sad that the
great complaint against me is something I'm not suggesting but those
that I'm having this discussion with! You and your views on the subject
matter remind me of another group of people that get bad mouthed
here, the ID people. You know what it is you are looking at so it must
be the way it is, I don't see a wit of difference between your argument
and theirs, and more times than not ID people get called religious in
their views, and with respect the beliefs or doctrine or theories I'm
been callng beliefs, from where I'm sitting I don't see any difference
between you and them, you are in just another camp of believers.


You may ID the dinosaurs as meat eaters if you want, for me it is at
best an educated guess.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are also for believing deductions based on what is right before you so long as those deductions do not contradiction your beliefs based on the Bible. For example:
1. You deduce that the fossil before you is the fossilized skull of a dinosaur that lived at some point in the past.
2. You refuse to deduce a deduction based on the ratio of radio isotope ...[text shortened]... e fossil.

You avoid difficult questions and try your best to be extremely vague at all times.

I refuse to say something is a fact based on a your ability to properly
correctly get the age right, I will with you claim according to the test
we are using it is this age, but that is not the same thing as saying it
is this age.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You may ID the dinosaurs as meat eaters if you want, for me it is at
best an educated guess.

How educated a guess do you think it is? Do you think it's very likely true, likely true, 50/50,
likely false, or very likely false?

This 'guess' has to have a probability factor associated with it. What do you feel the probability is
that it is an accurate guess.

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
I refuse to say something is a fact based on a your ability to properly
correctly get the age right, I will with you claim according to the test
we are using it is this age, but that is not the same thing as saying it
is this age.
Kelly

What do you suppose the likelihood of the test's accuracy is? Very likely, likely, 50/50, unlikely
or very unlikely?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
How educated a guess do you think it is? Do you think it's very likely true, likely true, 50/50,
likely false, or very likely false?

This 'guess' has to have a probability factor associated with it. What do you feel the probability is
that it is an accurate guess.

Nemesio

That is my point you wish or need to display your odds of being right
as if I or anyone can tell you what they are, you sre like the ID people,
you see what you think is real and call many of your beliefs facts.

I cannot tell you the likely hood of being right or wrong unless I have
all the necessary data points in the proper light of how they need to
be looked at. You can tell me if that is true, maybe we can talk about
odds. That is a item specific question, the closer to now things are the
better we know what we are dealing with.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is my point you wish or need to display your odds of being right
as if I or anyone can tell you what they are, you sre like the ID people,
you see what you think is real and call many of your beliefs facts.

I cannot tell you the likely hood of being right or wrong unless I have
all the necessary data points in the proper light of how they need to ...[text shortened]... ific question, the closer to now things are the
better we know what we are dealing with.
Kelly

You can give a subjective probability estimate. That's just a fancy term for your gut impression.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I refuse to say something is a fact based on a your ability to properly
correctly get the age right, I will with you claim according to the test
we are using it is this age, but that is not the same thing as saying it
is this age.
Kelly

I have not asked you to "say something is a fact based on a your ability to properly correctly get the age right". I have asked you some simple direct questions and not told you what answers to give. Your refusal to answer tells me that you know that you are wrong and that your answers would highlight the fact.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I cannot tell you the likely hood of being right or wrong unless I have
all the necessary data points in the proper light of how they need to
be looked at.

You clearly don't understand probability. To give a probability all you need is one data point. As more data points are added, the probability changes. There is really no such thing as "all the necessary data points".

That is a item specific question, the closer to now things are the better we know what we are dealing with.
Kelly
I have repeatedly shown that that statement is false and that you yourself to not abide by it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly don't understand probability. To give a probability all you need is one data point. As more data points are added, the probability changes. There is really no such thing as "all the necessary data points".

[b]That is a item specific question, the closer to now things are the better we know what we are dealing with.
Kelly
I have repeatedly shown that that statement is false and that you yourself to not abide by it.[/b]

If you are getting readings on devices under test and you may feel
you are beginning to understand why the devices are behaving the
way they are. You could have plenty of data points, but if you are
looking at just your data and your focus is only on the how the parts
are being built it could escape your notice that the conditions of the
test are not what you think, that would make all of your data points
points worthless. It does not matter what your readings were telling
you if the conditions of test were not controlled the way you thought.

That is my complaint about tests that you believe reveals X amount
of years, you simply do not know what you do not know, and that
alone should but apparently does not give you pause. So your
confidence on what you think is true should show you that you and the
ID group have a lot in common. You both see what you think is true
and you see it in everthing!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So your confidence on what you think is true should show you that and the ID group have a lot in common. You both see what you think is true
and you see it in everthing!
Kelly

You keep going off on a tangent and avoiding my questions. You also keep repeating statements that I have proven to be false.

As for your repeated attempts to draw similarities between the ID folks and science in general, the difference is that the ID folks decide what they want to see and then claim to have proved it even when they do not have any data to support it. They even falsify data or use data that has been shown to be false in order to try and bolster their case. Their basic premise is fundamentally flawed: "The most likely explanation is that there is no explanation: therefore God".

Now see if you can answer some of my questions. If you cant then be honest enough to admit that you are wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You keep going off on a tangent and avoiding my questions. You also keep repeating statements that I have proven to be false.

As for your repeated attempts to draw similarities between the ID folks and science in general, the difference is that the ID folks decide what they want to see and then claim to have proved it even when they do not have any dat ...[text shortened]... an answer some of my questions. If you cant then be honest enough to admit that you are wrong.

Ask your question point blank here, there will be no excuse on my
part for not answering it. I only hope your questions have question
marks in them so I know it is a question, not just a comment that you
wanted a response about.

I am neither an ID person nor an evolutionist though I agree with some
of the things I know about in each of them, and I can tell you from
my perspective there is little to distinguish you and many here from ID
people. I recall you saying that the ID people lie to prove their points,
and here I have had people accuse me of making arguments for
things I was not saying, which could be called lies though I’m sure those
that did that including you that did it were just trying to grasp what you
thought I was saying and putting it into your own words to make a point.
You do see what you want to see everywhere you look, in all tests you
seem to think are important, the ID people do the same thing yet when
they do it is not science according to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Ask your question point blank here, there will be no excuse on my
part for not answering it.

My question complete with question mark (as originally posted).

1. We know the size and shape of a fossil and conclude the existence of dinosaurs in the past and the size and shape of their bones.
2. We know the size and shape of some radioactive elements in a rock and conclude the original chemical content of the rock and the exact amount of time that the element has been radioactively decaying.
Why is 1. valid and not 2. ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My question complete with question mark (as originally posted).

1. We know the size and shape of a fossil and conclude the existence of dinosaurs in the past and the size and shape of their bones.
2. We know the size and shape of some radioactive elements in a rock and conclude the original chemical content of the rock and the exact amount of time that the element has been radioactively decaying.
Why is 1. valid and not 2. ?

We have the fossils (today) looking at them today we see their size
and shape, since we define dinosaurs according to structure we can
see it and therefore define them.

1. We have fossils, the fossils they are the facts, what we think about
them or our conclusions may or may not be true.

We have our readings (today) of the radioactive elements in the
rocks those are the facts.

2. Our readings are the facts yet our conclusions may or may not be true.

I do not see how I have been not saying the same thing over and
over! You want to treat your conclusions like the ID people do, that
is completely up to you, for me any time you do that, the next piece
of data that rolls in may change how we view something, it is not
my fault you want your conclusion to be equal to the thing you are
holding in your hand.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We have the fossils (today) looking at them today we see their size
and shape, since we define dinosaurs according to structure we can
see it and therefore define them.

1. We have fossils, the fossils they are the facts, what we think about
them or our conclusions may or may not be true.

We have our readings (today) of the radioactive elements in t ...[text shortened]... my fault you want your conclusion to be equal to the thing you are
holding in your hand.
Kelly

We have fossils. We deduce dinosaurs' structures from there.
We have radioactive isotopes in rocks. We deduce the time of decay from there.

Originally posted by telerion
We have fossils. We deduce dinosaurs' structures from there.
We have radioactive isotopes in rocks. We deduce the time of decay from there.

Tel, it’s been so many years since I did any statistics at all—and I have a great talent for forgetting whatever I do not use regularly—is the following statement an accurate (if perhaps redundantly stated) encapsulation of what you and serigado have been saying (across several threads now)?

Statistical methodology not only extrapolates from known data points to make predictions with a known probability, it also allows one to determine the range, and limits, of possible error.

Feel free to restate that if I haven’t got it right.

This whole discussion reminds me of Wittgenstein’s On Certainty: There are some things that, if we cannot rely on them, then we are left—not with having to allow articulable alternative possibilities—but with the inability to say anything at all; that is, with a general, radical, and I would say unsustainable, skepticism.

Nemesio and twhitehead, for example, seem to be saying that that is where KellyJay’s position leads him; he is saying that it does not. (Not trying to put words into any player’s mouth here.)