Intelligent Design is not creationism

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Motive is that which motivates.

Doh!

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Sadly, you can't even figure such a simple concept out...

Obviously, you don't even understand why you're getting F's.

Motive, is the primary reason for action. In other words, lacking motive, then there is no reason for action. In a court the lack of motive is often used in criminal defense.

Motivate, OTOH, means to use incentives to move someone to action. These incentives are usually secondary. For example, your parents may offer you candies to motivate you to study English.

Certainly candies should not be your motive for studying English. Maybe that's why you failed your English class.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

jem,
Don't get too hung up on a quote from a "Nobel Prize winner." First, you don't understand what they're talking about. Second, if you do, then you know that they're as likely to be wrong as anyone else.

If you really want to learn about the AP and the cosmology constant, read the peer-reviewed literature. For starter, get this paper and read it:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00097000020201301000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes
" Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 201301 (2006)

Why Anthropic Reasoning Cannot Predict Lambda

Glenn D. Starkman1,2 and Roberto Trotta1
1Astrophysics Department, Oxford University, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom
2Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7079, USA

(Received 17 July 2006; published 16 November 2006)

We revisit anthropic arguments purporting to explain the measured value of the cosmological constant. We argue that different ways of assigning probabilities to candidate universes lead to totally different anthropic predictions. As an explicit example, we show that weighting different universes by the total number of possible observations leads to an extremely small probability for observing a value of Lambda equal to or greater than what we now measure. We conclude that anthropic reasoning within the framework of probability as frequency is ill-defined and that in the absence of a fundamental motivation for selecting one weighting scheme over another the anthropic principle cannot be used to explain the value of Lambda, nor, likely, any other physical parameters."

Follow the thread of discussion by looking at the papers that they cite, and by searching out new papers that cite this one. Then you'll get a full picture of the discussion. Hopefully this way you won't make a fool of yourself again.

James I have read articles which seem to follow this line of thought. What is happening is that physicists are now using anthropic principles to predict other constants and other values for yet unproven variables. In other words that are saying when solving this problem we only have to look at the solutions consistent with life.

While I did not pay for the paper which this head note seems to summarize - the head note itself is apparently off point because it seems pretains to measuring lamda in candiate universes.

The Csomological constant has already been measured in our universe - we would only worry about candidate univese if we were buying into the landscapes of string theory.


By the way KJ is the one who moves the goal post. I am happy to learn. If you purchase the article I will read it.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

James I have read articles which seem to follow this line of thought. What is happening is that physicists are now using anthropic principles to predict other constants and other values for yet unproven variables. In other words that are saying when solving this problem we only have to look at the solutions consistent with life.

While I did not pay for the paper which this head note seems to summarize - the head note itself is apparently off point because it seems pretains to measuring lamda in candiate universes.

The Csomological constant has already been measured in our universe - we would only worry about candidate univese if we were buying into the landscapes of string theory.


By the way KJ is the one who moves the goal post. I am happy to learn. If you purchase the article I will read it.

I guess the point is completely lost on you. Do you live near a university? If so, go to the university library and look for the journal "Physical Review Letters." They should have it. Find the article and read it. Find the related articles and read them. Then you'll begin to understand what the physicists are talking about.

If you refuse to learn, I can't help you.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Oh, I understand that you think you are some kind of English teacher...figures.

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Obviously, you don't even understand why you're getting F's.

Motive, is the primary reason for action. In other words, lacking motive, then there is no reason for action. In a court the lack of motive is often used in criminal defense.

Motivate, OTOH, means to use incentives to move someone to action. These incentives are usually secondary. For example, your parents may offer you candies to motivate you to study English.

Certainly candies should not be your motive for studying English. Maybe that's why you failed your English class.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Court is not a science lab applying scientific methods, so your explanation doesn't show how science can know motive, yet we all know motives do exist.

So, motive must be magic...

I can attach a polygraph to almost any witness and scientifically verify his/her motive in about 10 minutes. It's just not admissible in court without consent of all parties.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Unreliable, and you know it.

And it doesn't show motive, it shows physical reactions only, and then a guess is made why the physical reactions are what they are as related to the question, and since the guesses are not and exact science, they are not used by the court. Polygraph therefore does not show motive.

Heck, the court puts more validity in 12 human beings listening to testimony and evaluating evidence as a jury than it does a polygraph to determine motive and truth-saying in a court of law, and that should tell us the level of "science" of a polygraph.

So far you have not shown the ability to know motive scientifically, so motive must be magic according to your previous claims...

Quote from kjkent1:

I can attach a polygraph to almost any witness and scientifically verify his/her motive in about 10 minutes. It's just not admissible in court without consent of all parties.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from kjkent1:

I can attach a polygraph to almost any witness and scientifically verify his/her motive in about 10 minutes. It's just not admissible in court without consent of all parties.

Actually, a National Academy of Science study found that polygraphs "would incorrectly classify 99.5% of “deceptive” results (those telling the truth yet incorrectly deemed to be deceitful), and incorrectly classify 20% of deceitful subjects." That's pretty useless IMHO. Its utility is mostly in scaring the subject into telling the truth.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Actually, a National Academy of Science study found that polygraphs "would incorrectly classify 99.5% of “deceptive” results (those telling the truth yet incorrectly deemed to be deceitful), and incorrectly classify 20% of deceitful subjects." That's pretty useless IMHO. Its utility is mostly in scaring the subject into telling the truth.

I recognize that the NAS study found that polygraphs weren't very good. But, that study did not do independent testing to my knowledge -- it only examined the results of third party studies to determine their scientific rigor.

Judges routinely require polygraph exams from persons on probation -- especially those persons convicted of sexual or domestic abuse.

Judges will also give heavy consideration to dismissing an ex-parte domestic abuse restraining order (which is the modern woman's silver bullet for forcing her husband out of the family home as preparation for a divorce action) if the defendant is willing to submit to a polygraph test.

In such cases, the TRO is based entirely on the unsupported testimony of the spouse claiming abuse, and the only way that the defendant can exonerate himself is to offer up the polygraph.

So, while it's only my anecdotal experience in this area, I will stick with my statement, that I can have nearly anyone who's charged with a crime or civil offense, attached to a polygraph and determine the truth of the charges, including the person's motive -- or lack thereof.

There are always those who are either so delusional or sociopathic, that they are immune to any emotion when lying. But, for the average person, the polygraph, in the hands of a qualified examiner, will produce extremely reliable results.

 

[kjkent1]

PS. As usual, Z has quickly diverted the topic to something irrelevant, so that he can prevail in the argument, rather than having to deal with the substance of the thread.

Congratulations -- no one can waste other people's time quite like you, Z.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

As usual, when the flaw in Kent's argument is illustrated, he goes goes all ad hominem.

Classic...

Quote from kjkent1:

PS. As usual, Z has quickly diverted the topic to something irrelevant, so that he can prevail in the argument, rather than having to deal with the substance of the thread.

Congratulations -- no one can waste other people's time quite like you, Z.