Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Facepalm!
Hey Rick, this isn't my field so I only jumped in when I saw Z getting statistics wrong (again), but I do have a question, what is the measure of error for this field? Are they talking standard deviation, standard error, 95%CI, or something else? Also in biology we give the absolute values rather than relative.
I can understand how a layman could get confused the way they jump between accuracy, error and uncertainty.
Hey Rick, this isn't my field so I only jumped in when I saw Z getting statistics wrong (again), but I do have a question, what is the measure of error for this field? Are they talking standard deviation, standard error, 95%CI, or something else? Also in biology we give the absolute values rather than relative.
I can understand how a layman could get confused the way they jump between accuracy, error and uncertainty.
Maybe you participants should examine the statistical terminology before patting yourselves on the back
"accurate to approximately 3%"
that is covered here "Accurate to" and "confidence levels" are distinct terminologies.
Statistics Glossary - confidence intervals
Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11, 18)
Bats aren't birds. They are mammals.
I admit, I haven't taken a statistics course since graduate school. But just one question Zaius. Do you ever read the sources you cite?
[FONT=helvetica, arial, ms sans serif]
[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, ms sans serif]Confidence Level"[/FONT]
[FONT=helvetica, arial, ms sans serif]
[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, ms sans serif]The confidence level is the probability valueassociated with a confidence interval.
It is often expressed as a percentage. For example, say, then the confidence level is equal to (1-0.05) = 0.95, i.e. a 95% confidence level.
Example
Suppose an opinion poll predicted that, if the election were held today, the Conservative party would win 60% of the vote. The pollster might attach a 95% confidence level to the interval 60% plus or minus 3%. That is, he thinks it very likely that the Conservative party would get between 57% and 63% of the total vote.
[/FONT]
What if all these electrical and gas layers are just results of gas diffusion and gravitational differentiation.
In statistical analysis there are specific tests for testing the validity of the data and data sets. There is no circular reasoning, it's mathematics processing physical data, no assumptions.When it is claimed in this paper that and accuracy is within 3% or 6% exactly what does that mean? A entire circular reasoning can be built around total speculation. It is simply an accuracy biased by assumptions that are highly speculative in the first place.
No, what the study said was:Visual interpretation only agreed 5% of the time so you take a flawed assumption based on faulty interpretations saying that there is possibly some uniform gradient of ions or oxygen isotopes. That is simply un-provable and in fact pure speculation.
Additional checks were also made, including having two stratigraphers from one group independently interpret selected core sections, and re-examination of of selected core sections. Overall, these tests indicated the manual interpretation of the visual observer was reproducible to about 5% in Holocene ice." (page 456)
Now, go back and read what your link said about confidence level. That 5% means a 95% reliability. Also, note that it was an independent observer. Two separate people processing the same data and only get a 5% difference in results. That is incredibly good.
I admit, I haven't taken a statistics course since graduate school. But just one question Zaius. Do you ever read the sources you cite?
[FONT=helvetica, arial, ms sans serif]
[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, ms sans serif]Confidence Level"[/FONT]
[FONT=helvetica, arial, ms sans serif]
[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, ms sans serif]The confidence level is the probability valueassociated with a confidence interval.
It is often expressed as a percentage. For example, say, then the confidence level is equal to (1-0.05) = 0.95, i.e. a 95% confidence level.
Example
Suppose an opinion poll predicted that, if the election were held today, the Conservative party would win 60% of the vote. The pollster might attach a 95% confidence level to the interval 60% plus or minus 3%. That is, he thinks it very likely that the Conservative party would get between 57% and 63% of the total vote.
[/FONT]
In all seriousness Rick the alpha can not be your 3 or 6%...
About the alpha level
Example:
.01 alpha level means that you leave open a 1% possibility of being wrong if you reject the null hypothesis (which is kinda sorta simplifiable to a 99% chance that the alternate/research hypothesis is "correct"). If the alpha level is .05, there's a 5% chance of being wrong if you reject the null.
Since the author uses accurate to approximately 3%
The alpha is not 3% but the result of (1-alpha) or an alpha of .97
Are you suggesting 0.97% rather than 97%?
In all seriousness Rick the alpha can not be your 3 or 6%...
About the alpha level
Example:
.01 alpha level means that you leave open a 1% possibility of being wrong if you reject the null hypothesis (which is kinda sorta simplifiable to a 99% chance that the alternate/research hypothesis is "correct"). If the alpha level is .05, there's a 5% chance of being wrong if you reject the null.
Since the author uses accurate to approximately 3%
The alpha is not 3% but the result of (1-alpha) or an alpha of .97
Not at all
It may be that the terminology used here does not carry strict statistical meaning.
But it is clear that alpha must be less than one.
Instead of saying accurate to approximately 3% it should say inaccurate to approximately 3% then you could say it would be the alpha in the strict sense.
It's not quite that simple, remember in the paper they used algorithms. Exactly what application they did not say, but knowing there were multiple variables it would have had to have been one dealing with least squares. Here's an example.
The standard algorithm for computing partial least squares regression components (i.e., factors) is nonlinear iterative partial least squares (NIPALS). There are many variants of the NIPALS algorithm which normalize or do not normalize certain vectors. The following algorithm, which assumes that the Xand Y variables have been transformed to have means of zero, is considered to be one of most efficient NIPALS algorithms.
For each h=1, ,c, where A0=X'Y, M0=X'X, C0=I, and c given,
The factor scores matrix T is then computed as T=XW and the partial least squares regression coefficients B of Y on X are computed as B=WQ.
- compute qh, the dominant eigenvector of Ah'Ah
- wh=ChAhqh, wh=wh/||wh||, and store wh into W as a column
- ph=Mhwh, ch=wh'Mhwh, ph=ph/ch, and store ph into P as a column
- qh=Ah'wh/ch, and store qh into Q as a column
- Ah+1=Ah - chphqh' and Mh+1=Mh - chphph'
- Ch+1=Ch - whph'
Did you get the wrong link? Try this one: Eight-million-year-old bug is alive and growing8 million year old ice from Antarctica at Beacon Valley yields living micro organisms…
While I agree with most of your post and enjoyed how you admonished the ill-informed participants, you fell into several basic fallacies of your own in your traditional but flawed "bats aren't birds" criticism of the Biblical text.
1) Leviticus 11:13,19 never claims that "bats are birds". The Hebrew word involved can better be translated as "flying creatures"--- of which surely bats are among them---but that would make an awkward-sounding English translation, so "fowls" was an approximation decision made by the translators using the "King James English" of 1611. If you wish to contest the Hebrew exegesis of Bible translators who have been dead for centuries, go for it. But don't pretend that you've found "bats are birds" in the Biblical text. You didn't.
2) In any case, applying Linnaean taxonomy about a century before Carl Linnaeus was even born should have been obvious to you as AN ANACHRONISM FALLACY even if you are not well-informed about semantic fields and the basic linguistics of translating an ancient text.
As much as I enjoy the exposing of Young Earth Creationist pseudoscience and ignorance of the scriptures, it bothers me just as much when fundamentalists of another type make equally serious gaffes.
Good job.
People elsewhere have used the KJV translatiion to criticize the statement about whales and hares in much the same uneducated fashio.
I appreciate your research into scripture in the name if honest commmentary.
In regard to the flood, it ought at least be a reasonable cravate in the discussion to point out that the initial and predominate "audience" for scripture has been societies which could never have understood or entertained the idea that Modern man exploded out of Africa jsut 40,000 years ago, flooding up the mountains and filling every valley on earth.
Thr three racial stocks of a single Noah-type man to whom all people living today are related as the father in common 40 thusand years ago is hard to believe now.
That Genesis tells the story of the extinction of Neanderthal man and the whole strange truth we now have uncovered is not hard to see for those with an open mind and no bias either way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?