How to Twist Data

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
How to Twist Data

On October 27, an article appeared in the Guardian addressing a Christian professor's testimony before Parliamant regarding abortion law. In his testimony, Professor John Wyatt, of the Christian Medical Fellowhip, testified that his data for 1995-2006 contradicted the peer reviewed data collected and reported in a study called Epicure. In the peer reviewed data, there was a slight increase in premature babies' survival rates at week 24, but no significant improvement in the dismal 10-20% survival rate for births at 22 and 23 weeks. Prof Wyatt claims a 42% survival rate for weeks 22 and 23. It doesn't take much to understand why a Christian might be happy about that sort of thing. Their stated goal is to limit abortion as early as possible. These statistics, if verified, could easily provide ammo for their political arsenal.

Here's the rub. The data was doctored. For the year 1995, the number of surviving infants was divided against the number of live births. For the year 2006, it was divided against the number admitted to neonatal intensive care. In other words, the data simply excluded all those who died shortly after birth, before they could even be admitted to ICU.

It's a simple example, and you can read the Guardian article HERE if you're interested. I'm not really all that concerned with this individual topic. What I'm more interested in is demonstrating how easy it is to doctor statistics. If you haven't read my series of essays on critical thinking, this would be a good time to do so. Pay special attention to the sections on evidence -- what counts as evidence, and how to evaluate it. This is a great example of how a little bit of critical thinking can save you a lot of time. First, we have two conflicting pieces of evidence. One is peer reviewed and the other is not. Without knowing anything else, the default position should be to lean towards the peer reviewed data. Of course, to be thorough, we should double check to make sure it is peer reviewed in the sense we expect. If it's government review, that's different from independent scientists' review. Assuming the peer review process is ordinary, we can dismiss Prof. Wyatt out of hand unless and until he verifies his data.

The second thing to notice is that with or without peer review, we can ask a couple of simple questions of the data. Is the methodology consistent? Clearly, it is not. Using two different measures is pretty much useless. How was the data verified? When asked to provide authentication for his data, Prof. Wyatt produced an outline of the minutes of a conference. No data included. Without any further evidence, the correct thing to do is completely ignore the data. That sounds dismissive, but it's correct. We're not ignoring the data because we disagree with it. We're ignoring it because it does not meet the standards of evidence for good critical thinking.

Unfortunately, the number he produced, 42% survival, is being bandied about in Parliamant even now -- even after Prof. Wyatt adequately demonstrated his own data to be unreliable. Why is it important for us to be so nitpicky about science vs. conjecture? Because it's really important, and it's not what most people do.  Nobody in Parliament insisted on seeing the protocol, or the peer review.  It took a journalist reading through the records to notice that this number had simply been inserted into the debate without so much as a "How do you do."

If you don't like having untruth foisted upon you, it behooves you to practice asking the right questions, and more importantly, to learn to interpret the answers you get without bias.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
(Funny how you learn stuff

(Funny how you learn stuff when you keep asking questions, isn't it...)

I also found the conclusion to this debate.  Here's the press release.  Go SCIENCE and Critical Thinking!  One for the good guys.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE OFFICE, HOUSE OF COMMONS

7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA

Tel. Nos. 020 7219 email: [email protected]

PRESS NOTICE

No. 66 of Session 2006-07

31 October 2007

PUBLICATION OF REPORT

SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS RELATING TO THE ABORTION ACT 1967

The Science and Technology Committee today sets out its conclusions on scientific developments which ought to be considered in any new Parliamentary debate relating to the Abortion Act 1967.

The Committee decided to hold its inquiry in order to inform parliamentary and public debate after it was ruled that abortion would fall within the remit of the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is likely to be presented to the House in the 2007/8 session.

The Committee makes clear that its conclusions and recommendations are restricted to those issues capable of scientific evaluation and recognises that other factors also come into play when abortion law reform is being considered by Parliament.

The Committee concludes that while survival rates at 24 weeks (the current upper limit for abortion) and over have improved since 1990, survival rates (viability) have not done so below that gestational point. The Committee concludes that there is no scientific basis - on the grounds on viability - to reduce the upper time limit.

The Committee supports the removal of the requirement for two doctors signatures before an abortion can be carried out. The Committee is concerned that the requirement for two signatures may be causing delays in access to abortion services and found no evidence of its value in terms of safety.

Nurses and midwives with suitable training and professional guidance, should not be prevented by law from carrying out all stages of early medical and early surgical abortion. The Committee says that it found there is no evidence that this would compromise patient safety or quality of care.

On the issue of foetal pain, the Committee says the evidence suggests that while foetuses have physiological reactions to stimuli, this does not indicate that pain is consciously felt, especially not below 24 weeks. It further concludes that these factors may be relevant to clinical practice but do not appear to be relevant to the question of abortion law.

While new 4D imaging techniques are a useful tool in diagnosis of foetal abnormality, there is no evidence they provide any scientific insights on the question of foetal sentience or viability.

Any debate on the impact an alteration to the upper time limit would have on those women who present late for abortion would be better informed if there was improved collection of information relating to the reasons why women come forward at this late stage and about how many women travel overseas for late abortions.

On the question of the merits of clarification or a definition of “seriously handicapped”, the Committee does not consider that an exhaustive list of abnormalities is feasible, but believes that guidance on what “serious handicap” means would be helpful; and further that data collection in this area be improved.

The Committee concludes there is no evidence relating to safety, effectiveness or patient acceptability that should deter Parliament from passing regulations which would enable women, who chose to do so, taking the second stage of early medical abortion at home. The Committee would like to see the necessary legislative change that would enable this to be pursued or at least piloted.

It also recommends that the clinical guidelines on abortion provision, including health risks associated with abortion, should ultimately be taken over by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Chairman of the Committee Phil Willis said: “Abortion is a complex issue. Legislative decisions are informed by ethical , moral, religious and political views, case law, scientific and medical evidence. As a Science and Technology Committee, we have focused on the science, and have done so rigorously.

“In our inquiry we have attempted to sift the evidence on scientific and medical developments since the last amendment of the law in 1990 and since the 1967 Act.

“We urge all MPs and the public to study the evidence we have taken and the conclusions we have reached.”

The Report is published at electronically at 0001 on Wednesday 31 October 2007.

Hard copies of the Report can be obtained from TSO outlets and from the Parliamentary Bookshop, 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, London SW1A 2JX (020 7219 3890) by quoting the appropriate HC number from Tuesday 6 November 2007.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Further:

Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
the Church of the Flying

the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://www.venganza.org/

Love it CrimsonEdge 

 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Good stuff. I've given your

Good stuff.
I've given your work a brief look-through and liked what I scanned through.
There's too much for a thorough read for now, maybe another day.

Talking of Rational Content, within the week I ought to have a collection of articles ready for posting.
They build up a web of arguments against the premise "theism is irrational" and also your and Harris' argument against moderates.

I'll let you know when it's ready.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Talking of Rational

Quote:

Talking of Rational Content, within the week I ought to have a collection of articles ready for posting.
They build up a web of arguments against the premise "theism is irrational" and also your and Harris' argument against moderates.

I'll let you know when it's ready.

You know I've been anxiously waiting!   I'm going to be really sad if it turns out we're just using words differently, which I suspect might be the case.  Just to make sure we're on the same page, I don't think I've ever said that theism doesn't confer some benefit to its adherents, or that moderates can't live perfectly sane lives.

*I believe that theism, as a foundation for discovering truth and facilitating accurate assessment of personal life goals, is A) irrational because it relies on faith, which is completely subjective, and B) less conducive to effective problem solving on a personal and societal level for the same reason.

*I believe that moderates of any religion (defined as having a foundation of non-contingent faith) must be viewed as facilitators of extremist religion because A) They have no rational basis for arguing against extremism that can't be trumped by faith, and B) They validate faith as a means of discovering truth, thereby shifting fundamentalists from the category of "Crazy" to the category of "Over-zealous."

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: *I

Hambydammit wrote:

*I believe that moderates of any religion must be viewed as facilitators of extremist religion because

I may be walking into an old conversation, but what do you mean by "extremist religion"?

I'm trying to decide if you consider me a moderate or an extremist Smiling


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I may be walking

Quote:

I may be walking into an old conversation, but what do you mean by "extremist religion"?

I'm trying to decide if you consider me a moderate or an extremist Smiling

Most likely, I consider you a moderate, but you probably won't like what I think about that.  Here are my two main threads dealing with moderates.

Will Moderates Please Get Pissed? Please?

It's all about the Moderates

Also, you should read this thread to make sure you understand my position on contingent vs. non-contingent faith.

If you want to be extremely thorough, you'll read this one, too.  If you read all four of these threads (read all of the first two threads, because I do a good bit of clarifying as the threads progress) you should have a very good understanding of my position regarding faith and moderates.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Thanks! That is a lot of

Thanks! That is a lot of reading material (especially if I include all the comments).

I've just started the first essay, but I'm pretty sure I'm a fundamentalist under your definitions. Sorry Eye-wink

Would you agree that there is a difference between fundamentalist versions of Christianity and Islam?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Would you agree that

Quote:
Would you agree that there is a difference between fundamentalist versions of Christianity and Islam?

No.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Err... let me clarify...

Err... let me clarify... No, there is no foundational difference.  Clearly, there are superficial differences between any two religions.  My thesis regarding moderates/fundamentalists deals with the foundation of the belief system, namely faith.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Ok, interesting. I will

Ok, interesting. I will have to read more.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: You know

Hambydammit wrote:
You know I've been anxiously waiting! I'm going to be really sad if it turns out we're just using words differently, which I suspect might be the case. Just to make sure we're on the same page, I don't think I've ever said that theism doesn't confer some benefit to its adherents, or that moderates can't live perfectly sane lives.

Yeah. I think I get your position right.
I think there are two main points that I'll be putitng forward:
1) Reason as a practice is justified by practical reason.
It's not an argument that reason sometimes has bad consequences, it's an argument that there's a purpose to why we apply reason.

2) I argue that religion isn't simply a claim about the truth of the world, so our approach to dealing with religion is different to facts about the world. If religion was just a claim of facts then my only argument would be that a disagreement might stem from a disagreement in metaphysical paradigm rather than a lack of reason, and that paradigms take time to devellop so the fact they aren't 'there' yet doesn't mean they're being irrational. On it's own, this wouldn't be a great boost to moderates as it merely makes disagreement 'permissable' rather than justified.
But if there's more to religion that justifies it as a practice...

Anyway, I'm going to stop writing here and see if I can finish the first draft and post it up today.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Ta da! It's a first draft

Ta da!
It's a first draft and I'll probably be doing a lot of re-writing in a couple of months. I'll also be spending this week ironing out formatting problems and possibly add one more essay.

In the meantime it's all up for critique.
Bon appetit!


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Ta da! It's

Strafio wrote:
Ta da! It's a first draft and I'll probably be doing a lot of re-writing in a couple of months. I'll also be spending this week ironing out formatting problems and possibly add one more essay. In the meantime it's all up for critique. Bon appetit!

Is one inviting, the dogs be let loose ? Wink


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
It's the rationalist's

It's the rationalist's masochistic way! thumbs up


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Then cry havoc ? a bit at

Then cry havoc Cool ? a bit at a time like this or all at ones

 

Strafio wrote:
 

"To me, reason is the method by which we settle disputes over the truth.
This dispute needn't be between two people. Perhaps you yourself have found yourself with two beliefs that contradict themselves. Perhaps you are entertaining a position that contradicts a belief of yours in order to test this belief against possible objections.
When we come across two positions that contradict each other, only one of them can be right. How do we choose which one? This is where the methods of reason come into play.
From here, there are two approaches to take.
One would be to build positive arguments in favour of your position.
Perhaps you can show that your position logically follows from beliefs that your opponent holds."

? Is one to consider oneself ones own opponent, is opponent an  appropriate word ?,  and the obvious light can be a wave and a particle contradiction ? how with one approach this, 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
You could consider the two

You could consider the two opponents to be different positions that your own mind holds, leaving your poor self with a cognitive dissonance until you resolve it.

On the wave/particle issue I don't really see a contradiction. Light is made up of particles but when there are many particles they, together, exhibit wave behaviour. A bit like how the waves at the sea side are made up of lots of little water molecules.

Obviously it won't be as simple as that, as any quantum physicist could explain, but the point is that there doesn't really have to be a contradiction when you see what it means for light to both be a particle and a wave.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cognitive dissonance I like

Cognitive dissonance I like it, but opponent naarrr an opponent is somewhat confrontational adversarial primitive, one can enter into a debate to determine the truth without such opposition, can one not ? and if the debate holds many debater's one can call it a mass-debate,

Physics, whatever the question the answer is physics

light is a wave and a particle simultaneously, it is a clear contradiction but there it is, when one looks at an electron it is a particle, but when one is not looking it becomes a wave of probability, and it will act accordingly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

please please please please please ask for more Smiling

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Cognitive dissonance I like it, but opponent naarrr an opponent is somewhat confrontational adversarial primitive, one can enter into a debate to determine the truth without such opposition, can one not ? and if the debate holds many debater's one can call it a mass-debate,

Physics, whatever the question the answer is physics

light is a wave and a particle simultaneously, it is a clear contradiction but there it is, when one looks at an electron it is a particle, but when one is not looking it becomes a wave of probability, and it will act accordingly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

please please please please please ask for more Smiling

 

 

 

That's not a condradiction. It is not both simultaneously, it is only a particle when it is being observed since the exchange of data collapses the wave function. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Obviously it won't

Quote:
Obviously it won't be as simple as that, as any quantum physicist could explain, but the point is that there doesn't really have to be a contradiction when you see what it means for light to both be a particle and a wave.

I'm surprised to see veterans of this board bringing this up.  Surely we've all become familiar enough with the fallacy of composition to avoid this. 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

That's not a condradiction. It is not both simultaneously, it is only a particle when it is being observed since the exchange of data collapses the wave function.

 quote Einstein "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question 'what are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Cpt_pineapple thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken."

Cpt_pineapple the duality question is currently undergoing experimental verification, ? would you care to jump the gun with your old textbook answer ? as definitive, as "simultaneously" looks from early experiments like a real possibility


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

That's not a condradiction. It is not both simultaneously, it is only a particle when it is being observed since the exchange of data collapses the wave function.

quote Einstein "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question 'what are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Cpt_pineapple thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken."

Cpt_pineapple the duality question is currently undergoing experimental verification, ? would you care to jump the gun with your old textbook answer ? as definitive, as "simultaneously" looks from early experiments like a real possibility

 

 It's hard to understand what you're saying here.

 

 

But the electron is indeed both a wave and a particle, by the equation

 

Hy=Ey. 

 

 

Using this we can determine it's probability function. That is, the particle travels in waves of probability. When the electron is observed, it travels as a particle (as shown in your video).

 

However, when not observed, it travels in probability waves, the particle occupies all locations where the function is not zero, until observed (hence the interference pattern). So when the electron hits the screen, the wave function collapses.

 

So it displays both properties of particles and waves.It is not both and the same time.  

 

I'm not sure what your point is here. 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
The double slit

Smile

The double slit experiment, shows particles as in one of two states, wave or particle, but ............... they might be both simultaneously, unfortunately Dr quantum hasn't made a video of this yet, but the double slit experiment has moved on and been refined, new experiments are currently trying to determine whether simultaneously is an option, early experiments, although debated are showing simultaneous


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

but opponent naarrr an opponent is somewhat confrontational adversarial primitive, one can enter into a debate to determine the truth without such opposition, can one not?


Dude, I gave you a metaphor.
A way of looking at things. I think you are getting too hung up on the word 'opponent' and thereby missing the point.
You use reason when there are two competing positions.
Even if you are merely searching for the truth without an 'opponent' your reasoning will still be between two oppositing propositions.

Pineapple was right.
The 'wave' and 'particle' metaphors were ways of describing how the same mathematical equation behaves. The contradiction is only there is you treat the metaphors more than metaphors and commit that fallacy of composition.

Btw, have Hamby or Pineapple taken a look at the articles yet?
Pineapple, I think you'll find it intruiging as it's your kind of position that it's trying to vindicate. (It's the 'Tada' link that Dev is quoting.)


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Meh! Turns out that I wasn't

Meh! Turns out that I wasn't supposed to put them up where I did and they all got taken down.
I'll work out what to do with them next.
I'll let you know.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Btw, have

Strafio wrote:

Btw, have Hamby or Pineapple taken a look at the articles yet? Pineapple, I think you'll find it intruiging as it's your kind of position that it's trying to vindicate. (It's the 'Tada' link that Dev is quoting.)

 I'll look them over. I'll read them several times before I can offer some input.

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Dude,

Strafio wrote:
Dude, Pineapple was right. The 'wave' and 'particle' metaphors were ways of describing how the same mathematical equation behaves. The contradiction is only there is you treat the metaphors more than metaphors and commit that fallacy of composition.

Dude'es this is not some ways of describing how the same mathematical equation behaves, this can be confirmed or denied empirically

Wave–particle duality, superposition , quantum tunneling, Quantum entanglement, (oh my, euclidean 3+1 space will never be the same,)

light can be a electromagnetic wave, or a particle, or a wave function, or a small plastic duck called sam, simultaneously

Experimentally observable quantum correlations demonstrate that intuitive features of realism must be abandoned.

An experimental test of non-local realism

Quantum physics has contradictions, there it is, one may choose to ignore these contradictions, or gloss over the empirical evidence, by saying it's just a mathematical theory, or other experiments will determine the truth because I know intuitively that reality/realism is real, .but if you do you have abandoned truth, and reason

 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
The law of non-contradiction

The law of non-contradiction is more fundamental than any 'facts' about quantum physics. Quantum physics is based on observations and mathematical forumulae that try and model the observations into mathematical equations. Any contradictions will be we be flaws with the model rather than a characteristic of reality.

If you read the article on logic (when I re-post it) it'll show when the law of non-contradiction is so fundamental. It's based on the rules of language as we use it. A contradiction isn't a 'thing' in the world, it's us confusing our words/concepts in a way that stops our language meaning anything.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote:

Strafio wrote:
The law of non-contradiction is more fundamental than any 'facts' about quantum physics. 

And there it is Wink ? do you see it


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 The condraticitons only

 
The condraticitons only hold if you take classical physics as dogma. There will always be paradoxes in QM, since it operates so far beyond our understanding.  

 

Anyway, I've heard atheists say that the God concept condraticts itself, ergo God does not exist.

 

On that note, it is difficult for me to determine what Rev is saying here. 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: "To me,

Strafio wrote:


"To me, reason is the method by which we settle disputes over the truth.
This dispute needn't be between two people. Perhaps you yourself have found yourself with two beliefs that contradict themselves. Perhaps you are entertaining a position that contradicts a belief of yours in order to test this belief against possible objections.
When we come across two positions that contradict each other, only one of them can be right.



In many situations, quantum physics/mechanics, psychology and so on, one may encounter, such contradictions, and whether such contradictions only have one correct answer is at the moment uncertain, to imply that reason can work in such black and white terms, and thus place the truth at ones feet, is to go beyond the limitations, of reason itself,

 Reason itself is an incredibly useful tool so is logic and mathematics, but these tools are limited............ we need better tools, but until we have these new tools, one must understand and accept the limitations of the tools we have

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


Anyway, I've heard atheists say that the God concept condraticts itself, ergo God does not exist.

On that note, it is difficult for me to determine what Rev is saying here.



There is madness in my method,
This is purely about the truth, "When we come across two positions that contradict each other, only one of them can be right" this statement is not entirely truthful, one might add the word usually thus" When we come across two positions that contradict each other,usually only one of them can be right, I'm sure Strafio won't like this, but there it is ? unless you can think of a better way of describing this limitation in reason

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I will agree with this

I will agree with this statement:

"When we come across two statements which contradict each other, one of them must be false unless we are speaking strictly within the terms of a system that is known to have apparent contradictions, namely quantum physics."

Anything less would be committing a fallacy of composition.  

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Furthermore, I'm not a

Furthermore, I'm not a quantum physicist, but if I understand it correctly, quantum particles are something.  To us, they appear to be both a wave and a particle, but this is describing the limitation of our observation and methods of categorization, not a true duality of their existence.  If we get down to brass tacks, they exist as something and we just have a lot of trouble explaining it.

(Feel free to correct me on that.  I'm basically asking if I understand it correctly.)

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:



Cpt_pineapple wrote:


Anyway, I've heard atheists say that the God concept condraticts itself, ergo God does not exist.

On that note, it is difficult for me to determine what Rev is saying here.



There is madness in my method,
This is purely about the truth, "When we come across two positions that contradict each other, only one of them can be right" this statement is not entirely truthful, one might add the word usually thus" When we come across two positions that contradict each other,usually only one of them can be right, I'm sure Strafio won't like this, but there it is ? unless you can think of a better way of describing this limitation in reason

 

 

I've already explained the electron diffraction and wave/particle duality.

 We only have a limited understanding of QM, so paradoxes are bound to arise, and since it operates and such different energies/distances, it's hard to reslove them. 

 

 

 Also, it was difficult for me to comprehend your previous posts because of the way you wrote them.

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Furthermore, I'm not a quantum physicist, but if I understand it correctly, quantum particles are something. To us, they appear to be both a wave and a particle, but this is describing the limitation of our observation and methods of categorization, not a true duality of their existence. If we get down to brass tacks, they exist as something and we just have a lot of trouble explaining it.

(Feel free to correct me on that. I'm basically asking if I understand it correctly.)

 

Possibly Smiling an accurate descriptions of particles or ectromagnetic waves or wave functions, just doesn't exist, they're still arguing about the nature of light itself, personally I think it has a lot to do with trying to describe something that exists in 5 or more dimensions, when we can only think or express ourselves in 4 dimensions, btw I'm no physicist, I'm a humble minimum wage factory worker Cool

I like this

"When we come across two statements which contradict each other, one of them must be false unless we are speaking strictly within the terms of a system that is known to have apparent contradictions,

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:  

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
 

Also, it was difficult for me to comprehend your previous posts because of the way you wrote them.

My apologies Cpt_pineapple, I've been using large amounts of very dry British humor throughout Wink


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Also, it was difficult for me to comprehend your previous posts because of the way you wrote them.

My apologies Cpt_pineapple, I've been using large amounts of very dry British humor throughout Wink

 

I actually have a reading comprehension problem, so the dry humour didn't help.

 

 

Also, I don't think you should have used humour on the forums in the first place:

 


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If we get down to

Quote:
If we get down to brass tacks, they exist as something and we just have a lot of trouble explaining it.

Bohr's Principle of Complimentarity...light is both a wave and a particle and this is not a contradiction as we need both aspects to fully describe the behaviour of light. It was also stated that light could not be both simultaneously.

De Broglie hypothesis...any moving object (matter) has an associated wave.

The wavelength of this wave is dependant on an objects mass and speed

wavelength = h/mv

where h is planck's constant (6.6*10^-34), m is mass and v is speed.

Therefore the wavelength of ordinary matter is insignificant. 

We do not notice wave properties of matter as we live in an environment that is orders of magnitide greater than the size of a 'solids' wavelength. To perform a diffraction experiment you need slits of comparable size to a wavelength or the wave will  just go straight through like a particle (ie you need line of sight to watch TV but not hear it as sound waves will diffract due to their wavelength!)

 As h is so small the only (common) situation where matter can display wave properties is when an objects mass is tiny and the system it exists in is comparable to the wavelength...the associated wavelength of a typical electron in an atom is comparable to the size of the atom itself thus the wave properties are dramatic! 

Cooling stuff close to absolute zero can also produce wave properties as the speed of the individual atoms becomes tiny thus even matter on the macroscopic scale can behave wavelike!

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, Cernunnos! That all

Thanks, Cernunnos!

That all makes sense to me, and it lines up with what I was trying to say.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: On

Hambydammit wrote:

On October 27, an article appeared in the Guardian addressing a Christian professor's testimony before Parliamant regarding abortion law. In his testimony, Professor John Wyatt, of the Christian Medical Fellowhip, testified that his data for 1995-2006 contradicted the peer reviewed data collected and reported in a study called Epicure. In the peer reviewed data, there was a slight increase in premature babies' survival rates at week 24, but no significant improvement in the dismal 10-20% survival rate for births at 22 and 23 weeks. Prof Wyatt claims a 42% survival rate for weeks 22 and 23. It doesn't take much to understand why a Christian might be happy about that sort of thing. Their stated goal is to limit abortion as early as possible. These statistics, if verified, could easily provide ammo for their political arsenal.

Here's the rub. The data was doctored. For the year 1995, the number of surviving infants was divided against the number of live births. For the year 2006, it was divided against the number admitted to neonatal intensive care. In other words, the data simply excluded all those who died shortly after birth, before they could even be admitted to ICU.

If there is proof of deliberate manipulation of data the Parliament needs to charge Wyatt with perjury

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
  Source,

 

Source, wikipedia

Various neutron interferometry experiments demonstrate the subtleness of the notions of duality and complementarity in an interesting way. By passing through the interferometer, the neutron appears to act as a wave. Yet upon passage, the neutron is subject to gravitation, which one might think only particles, and not waves, are subject to. As the neutron interferometer is rotated through Earth's gravitational field a phase change between the two arms of the interferometer can be observed, accompanied by a change in the constructive and destructive interference of the neutron waves on exit from the interferometer. Some interpretations claim that understanding the interference effect requires one to concede that a single neutron takes both paths through the interferometer at the same time; a single neutron would "be in two places at once", as it were. Since the two paths through a neutron interferometer can be as far as five to 15 cm apart, the effect is hardly microscopic. This is similar to traditional double-slit and mirror interferometer experiments where the slits (or mirrors) can be arbitrarily far apart. So, in interference and diffraction experiments, neutrons behave the same way as a photon (or an electron) of corresponding wavelength.

Cernunnos keep going Wink superposition next pls

 


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Superposition is an actual

Superposition is an actual physical state till those meddling scientists grasp (at) it Eye-wink


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If there is proof of

Quote:
If there is proof of deliberate manipulation of data the Parliament needs to charge Wyatt with perjury

As I understand it, there is not clear evidence that any one person manipulated the data.  It seems that each person involved in the chain has plausible deniability.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: Quote: If

Cernunnos wrote:

Quote:
If we get down to brass tacks, they exist as something and we just have a lot of trouble explaining it.

Bohr's Principle of Complimentarity...light is both a wave and a particle and this is not a contradiction as we need both aspects to fully describe the behaviour of light. It was also stated that light could not be both simultaneously.

De Broglie hypothesis...any moving object (matter) has an associated wave.

The wavelength of this wave is dependant on an objects mass and speed

wavelength = h/mv

where h is planck's constant (6.6*10^-34), m is mass and v is speed.

Therefore the wavelength of ordinary matter is insignificant.

We do not notice wave properties of matter as we live in an environment that is orders of magnitide greater than the size of a 'solids' wavelength. To perform a diffraction experiment you need slits of comparable size to a wavelength or the wave will just go straight through like a particle (ie you need line of sight to watch TV but not hear it as sound waves will diffract due to their wavelength!)

As h is so small the only (common) situation where matter can display wave properties is when an objects mass is tiny and the system it exists in is comparable to the wavelength...the associated wavelength of a typical electron in an atom is comparable to the size of the atom itself thus the wave properties are dramatic!

Cooling stuff close to absolute zero can also produce wave properties as the speed of the individual atoms becomes tiny thus even matter on the macroscopic scale can behave wavelike!

 

 

Isn't this what I was saying before? 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Anyway, two of the essays

Anyway, two of the essays are up in the forum.
There's the one that Dev was quoting and there's also another one which goes into why we avoid contradictions. I thought that I'd post them together as they're both interlinked.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
If there is proof of deliberate manipulation of data the Parliament needs to charge Wyatt with perjury

As I understand it, there is not clear evidence that any one person manipulated the data. It seems that each person involved in the chain has plausible deniability.

Ahhh, organised crime

Smiling 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Isn't this what I was saying before?

Yes Cpt_pineapple but if one accepts the theory, one also accepts superpositioning, eigenstates , the same particle can be the test particle, while simultaneously being all of the particle that make the atoms which make up the test equipment, oh my , it doesn't solve the contradiction it makes it worse, explaining stuff in 3+1 space while existing in 4+1 space is problematic at best, can you see this ?