Quote from jem:
As if you didn't use pejorative terms in your replys.
Again you exhibit your lack of integrity. I have not misrepresented a noble prize winner and you have just confirmed this entire subject is over your head. Do you know what a misrepresentation is?
You were proven to have misrepresented others in another thread. This is not the thread to rehash all of that. One way for one not to lose an argument, is to pretend that he never lost the argument. You're doing very well here.
Quote from jem:
You keep throwing the word around like a five year old yet you never actually point one out. You are a child.
and now you can see why I must cite authorities to you.
You --- once misrepresented what a null hypothesis is. You were berating me and acting like you were some sort of academic. You did not back down until I cited you to an internet cite which pointed out how wrong you were. I gave you an authority.
You keep bringing this up as a trophy. What a proud guy! Since you kept wanting to argue this again, let's do it.
Do you have any clue what a null hypothesis is? From all the bragging you're doing, it's clear that you still don't understand it. In my opinion, a null hypothesis should be one that assumes nothing. You gave me an example of a different definition. When I looked things up, I found out that many people use the definition that the null hypothesis is one that needs to be proven wrong. Although I disagree with this definition, because it is widely used I admitted that I could be wrong. Yes you did appeal to authority in this case but it doesn't mean that you understood what was being argued.
In my view, the correct definition of a null hypothesis, is the following:
It is the assumption that any observed difference between two samples of a statistical population is purely accidental and not due to systematic causes.
Now go ahead and argue that it is not this. This time I'm going to stick to my definition and claim that people who deviate from this definition are in error. Make your argument now. Show us that you actually know something.
Quote from jem:
It is the same now. You do not believe what I say - even though I am correct, it is too painful for you to adjust your views. I have not even argumed the authority is correct only that they are scientists who say that there is evidence of design.
Yet you are so dense you refuse to read the english. You refuse to understand the math. You make false accusations when the quotes are there to be read.
Somehow you think that referencing experts on a subject beyond your expertise is unscientific.
Are you really a professor somewhere? Have you ever read a journal with a footnote or a cite to an authority on the subject? do you think citing to authority is a problem with academia and academic journals?
do you think calling a scientific expert in a trial is a problem for science.
Get a life.
You never understood anything that you argued. This time it's no different. Science doesn't care who testifies in a trial, or who references whom on a subject. In a properly written research paper, references are not for the purpose of appealing to any authority. They are there so that other researchers can go and check to see if the cited work is correct. Just because an article cites Newton or Einstein doesn't automatically make it more valid than another article which doesn't cite these people.
As I said before, you always refuse to learn. And it shows.
