GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1186764206
From:
Subject: Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Events [FPE]
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:43:26 EDT
In a message dated 8/10/2007 2:36:38 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
writes:
I started my career as a research physicist. I have around a dozen
publications in "alpha rated" science journals about neutron
diffraction/scattering studies of solids; quantum chemistry of vitamin B6.
No-one's perfect! How about you?>>
----------------
I started in Astrophysics, switched to Computer Science and Math.
Got my double-major in that field.
I have no publications in any field.
I don't need any to see the holes in your logic. You refuse to discuss the
sample set and it's problem as a set. That's a basic requirement for
analysis of the set. So far you have yet to do it.
You just keep arguing there's no need to do it. But there is a need to do
it.
The 2% to 5% is a made-up number. Based on *no* analysis showing the raw
data. It's a basic requirement that a claim can be verified and falsified. I
have a hard time believing your background if you don't think this major
underpinning of the scientific method.
Your claim cannot be verified or falsified can it?
Will
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
This thread: