About Darwin and Mendel
chris thompson
in the Garden") that an "uncut" copy of Mendel's pea paper was found
among Darwin's papers.
"Uncut" in this sense refers to the then-common practice of leaving
adjacent pages attached. In order to read the inner pages, you had to
cut them apart at the outer edges.
First off, it occurs to me that I don't even know if authors got
reprints back then. For Darwin to have received an uncut version,
wouldn't Mendel have had to send him an entire issue of the journal?
But my real question is, is this apocryphal? Did Darwin have access to
Mendel's work? Darwin was surely well-enough known by 1866 (when
Mendel published) that Mendel would have wanted him to know his work,
but could he have afforded to send out many copies of the journal? Or
afforded to have copies of his paper printed privately?
Chris
John S. Wilkins
Purely apocryphal. Darwin had a journal that gave a short and rather
incoherent summary of Mendel's work in it, in which those pages were
uncut. Mendel did not send him anything, or if he did, it was neither
preserved in Darwin's library and correspondence, nor Mendel's
correspondence.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Ray Martinez
wrote:
Mendel was a Paleyan Creationist. He was working to falsify Darwinism.
The fact that Darwinists accept his facts and explain them in support
of evolution does not mean the explanation supports evolution.
Ray
chris thompson
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems that I read somewhere (it might have been Henig's "The Monk
> > in the Garden") that an "uncut" copy of Mendel's pea paper was found
> > among Darwin's papers.
>
> > "Uncut" in this sense refers to the then-common practice of leaving
> > adjacent pages attached. In order to read the inner pages, you had to
> > cut them apart at the outer edges.
>
> > First off, it occurs to me that I don't even know if authors got
> > reprints back then. For Darwin to have received an uncut version,
> > wouldn't Mendel have had to send him an entire issue of the journal?
>
> > But my real question is, is this apocryphal? Did Darwin have access to
> > Mendel's work? Darwin was surely well-enough known by 1866 (when
> > Mendel published) that Mendel would have wanted him to know his work,
> > but could he have afforded to send out many copies of the journal? Or
> > afforded to have copies of his paper printed privately?
>
> > Chris
>
> Purely apocryphal. Darwin had a journal that gave a short and rather
> incoherent summary of Mendel's work in it, in which those pages were
> uncut. Mendel did not send him anything, or if he did, it was neither
> preserved in Darwin's library and correspondence, nor Mendel's
> correspondence.
Thanks, John.
Do you think Darwin would have appreciated Mendel's work if he HAD
known of it? By some accounts, he was not mathematically inclined.
(Yes, we're descending into speculation here.)
Chris
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
chris thompson
> On Nov 22, 1:23 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems that I read somewhere (it might have been Henig's "The Monk
> > in the Garden") that an "uncut" copy of Mendel's pea paper was found
> > among Darwin's papers.
>
> > "Uncut" in this sense refers to the then-common practice of leaving
> > adjacent pages attached. In order to read the inner pages, you had to
> > cut them apart at the outer edges.
>
> > First off, it occurs to me that I don't even know if authors got
> > reprints back then. For Darwin to have received an uncut version,
> > wouldn't Mendel have had to send him an entire issue of the journal?
>
> > But my real question is, is this apocryphal? Did Darwin have access to
> > Mendel's work? Darwin was surely well-enough known by 1866 (when
> > Mendel published) that Mendel would have wanted him to know his work,
> > but could he have afforded to send out many copies of the journal? Or
> > afforded to have copies of his paper printed privately?
>
> > Chris
>
> Mendel was a Paleyan Creationist. He was working to falsify Darwinism.
Interesting. The biography of Mendel that I read made no mention of
that. Do you have some citations or other information that can support
that idea, Ray? I would love to see it.
Chris
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems that I read somewhere (it might have been Henig's "The Monk
> > in the Garden") that an "uncut" copy of Mendel's pea paper was found
> > among Darwin's papers.
> >
> > "Uncut" in this sense refers to the then-common practice of leaving
> > adjacent pages attached. In order to read the inner pages, you had to
> > cut them apart at the outer edges.
> >
> > First off, it occurs to me that I don't even know if authors got
> > reprints back then. For Darwin to have received an uncut version,
> > wouldn't Mendel have had to send him an entire issue of the journal?
> >
> > But my real question is, is this apocryphal? Did Darwin have access to
> > Mendel's work? Darwin was surely well-enough known by 1866 (when
> > Mendel published) that Mendel would have wanted him to know his work,
> > but could he have afforded to send out many copies of the journal? Or
> > afforded to have copies of his paper printed privately?
> >
> > Chris
>
> Purely apocryphal. Darwin had a journal that gave a short and rather
> incoherent summary of Mendel's work in it, in which those pages were
> uncut. Mendel did not send him anything, or if he did, it was neither
> preserved in Darwin's library and correspondence, nor Mendel's
> correspondence.
An apparent very detailed description of /two/ books genuinely
belonging to Charles Darwin (if not for very long) that cited Mendel
is given at
<http://members.shaw.ca/mcfetridge/darwin.html>
Both are in German, so rather you than me; it seems that one has the
uncut pages, and the other has notes in the margins made by Darwin
but /not/ in the section that mentions Mendel. And that neither one
"got the point" anyway. Having said that, Darwin had read several
books about evolution whose authors had not "got the point", and look
what happened. ;-)
The book with the uncut pages was lent "to George Romanes, in response
to a request for help from the latter, who had undertaken to write an
entry on hybridism for the ninth edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica",
so a look at that entry might be interesting. But evidently -ywell,
apparently - he didn't read that part, either. I suppose you could
sort of bend the pages and peek between them, if it wasn't your own
book...
Dakota
scientists test his hypothesis.
The theory of genetics pioneered by Mendel does support the theory of
evolution.
Mitchell Coffey
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems that I read somewhere (it might have been Henig's "The Monk
> > in the Garden") that an "uncut" copy of Mendel's pea paper was found
> > among Darwin's papers.
>
> > "Uncut" in this sense refers to the then-common practice of leaving
> > adjacent pages attached. In order to read the inner pages, you had to
> > cut them apart at the outer edges.
>
> > First off, it occurs to me that I don't even know if authors got
> > reprints back then. For Darwin to have received an uncut version,
> > wouldn't Mendel have had to send him an entire issue of the journal?
>
> > But my real question is, is this apocryphal? Did Darwin have access to
> > Mendel's work? Darwin was surely well-enough known by 1866 (when
> > Mendel published) that Mendel would have wanted him to know his work,
> > but could he have afforded to send out many copies of the journal? Or
> > afforded to have copies of his paper printed privately?
>
> > Chris
>
> Mendel was a Paleyan Creationist. He was working to falsify Darwinism.
Can you provide cites to Mendel's works or papers to support these
claims?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
By his own account he was not mathematically inclined. But in fact
his mathematical education was advanced. As was usually the case, he
was being over-modest.
Darwin's had more than enough mathematical knowledge to understand
Mendel's papers, which actually weren't that mathematical.
Mitchell
r norman
The story I read (which I also read elsewhere was apocryphal) was that
the library in London that Darwin frequented (some Society perhaps?)
did have the journal with Mendel's full paper but those pages were
uncut.
I don't think Darwin would have responded much in any event, just like
the rest of the biological world. There was absolutely nothing known
to even suggest that Mendel's "factors", paired but segregating, had
any physical reality until chromosomes were discovered that did
exactly that. And then Mendel's observations about inheritance fit
just about none of the types of variability actually observed in the
real world and the type of inheritance patterns actually observed.
Although pretty much all heritability can now be explained in terms of
complex combinations of genes interacting with each other, few things
show 3:1 or 1;2:1 or 9:3:3:1. Mendel was a bit premature in his
discovery: the background was not suitable for an acceptance of his
work.
David Hare-Scott
> On Nov 22, 1:23 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> It seems that I read somewhere (it might have been Henig's "The Monk
>> in the Garden") that an "uncut" copy of Mendel's pea paper was found
>> among Darwin's papers.
>>
>> "Uncut" in this sense refers to the then-common practice of leaving
>> adjacent pages attached. In order to read the inner pages, you had to
>> cut them apart at the outer edges.
>>
>> First off, it occurs to me that I don't even know if authors got
>> reprints back then. For Darwin to have received an uncut version,
>> wouldn't Mendel have had to send him an entire issue of the journal?
>>
>> But my real question is, is this apocryphal? Did Darwin have access
>> to Mendel's work? Darwin was surely well-enough known by 1866 (when
>> Mendel published) that Mendel would have wanted him to know his work,
>> but could he have afforded to send out many copies of the journal? Or
>> afforded to have copies of his paper printed privately?
>>
>> Chris
>
> Mendel was a Paleyan Creationist. He was working to falsify Darwinism.
You are inventing stuff again. And here was I thinking you might disapprove
of bearing false witness.....
David
John S. Wilkins
No. In fact little of what Mendel offered was really novel: the
particulate view of heredity was already known (cf. Lewes' article in
1856) and the math was relatively primitive. It took a Castle and a
Fisher to work out the implications for natural selection, and I doubt
Darwin would have given Mendel much shrift compared tot he breeders he
was relying upon.
Ron O
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
The book that I got the English translation of Mendel's paper from
claimed that an uncut copy of Mendel's paper was found among Darwin's
effects. It could have just been hear say. I can't remember the
title of the book, but it also had Fisher's statistical analysis of
Mendel's work demonstrating that the values were consistently too
close to expected to have ocurred by chance.
Ron Okimoto
John S. Wilkins
> On Nov 22, 5:35 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 1:23 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > It seems that I read somewhere (it might have been Henig's "The Monk
> > > in the Garden") that an "uncut" copy of Mendel's pea paper was found
> > > among Darwin's papers.
> >
> > > "Uncut" in this sense refers to the then-common practice of leaving
> > > adjacent pages attached. In order to read the inner pages, you had to
> > > cut them apart at the outer edges.
> >
> > > First off, it occurs to me that I don't even know if authors got
> > > reprints back then. For Darwin to have received an uncut version,
> > > wouldn't Mendel have had to send him an entire issue of the journal?
> >
> > > But my real question is, is this apocryphal? Did Darwin have access to
> > > Mendel's work? Darwin was surely well-enough known by 1866 (when
> > > Mendel published) that Mendel would have wanted him to know his work,
> > > but could he have afforded to send out many copies of the journal? Or
> > > afforded to have copies of his paper printed privately?
> >
> > > Chris
> >
> > Mendel was a Paleyan Creationist. He was working to falsify Darwinism.
>
> Interesting. The biography of Mendel that I read made no mention of
> that. Do you have some citations or other information that can support
> that idea, Ray? I would love to see it.
Mendel was working to show a mechanism by which evolution may have
occurred; and was cooperating with Nägeli in that regard. He was not
fond, so far as we can tell, of natural selection.
>
> Chris
>
> > The fact that Darwinists accept his facts and explain them in support
> > of evolution does not mean the explanation supports evolution.
> >
> > Ray
John S. Wilkins
Ron O
A reprint of the article was in the book along with Mendel's paper.
No such evidence for Darwin having Mendel's unopened paper.
Ron Okimoto
Burkhard
> On Nov 22, 1:23 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems that I read somewhere (it might have been Henig's "The Monk
> > in the Garden") that an "uncut" copy of Mendel's pea paper was found
> > among Darwin's papers.
>
> > "Uncut" in this sense refers to the then-common practice of leaving
> > adjacent pages attached. In order to read the inner pages, you had to
> > cut them apart at the outer edges.
>
> > First off, it occurs to me that I don't even know if authors got
> > reprints back then. For Darwin to have received an uncut version,
> > wouldn't Mendel have had to send him an entire issue of the journal?
>
> > But my real question is, is this apocryphal? Did Darwin have access to
> > Mendel's work? Darwin was surely well-enough known by 1866 (when
> > Mendel published) that Mendel would have wanted him to know his work,
> > but could he have afforded to send out many copies of the journal? Or
> > afforded to have copies of his paper printed privately?
>
> > Chris
>
> Mendel was a Paleyan Creationist.
Really? How do you know that?
Mendel became famous (eventually) for just two papers,or rather, 2
variations of one paper: Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybride.
Both are here:
http://vlp.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/library/data/lit29259
As hard as I look, Paley is not mentioned once. Neither, btw, is God,
or creation.
Instead we find (my translation)
"It requires a lot of courage to carry out work of such far-reaching
extent; but this appears to be the only way to get finally the
answer to a question the importance of which cannot be overestimated
in relation to the the history of the evolution of organic forms."
and
"For the history of the history of plant evolution, this circumstance
is of special importance, since stable hybrids acquire the status of
new species"
Doesn't sound like species fixism to me - though to be totally fair,
the translation of "Entwicklungsgeschichte" as "history of evolution"
is a bit anachronistic. Haeckel would later translate Evolution this
way, but at the time of the writing, "history fo development" is maybe
more neutral.
Mendel did not keep a diary, and never wrote to the best of my
knowledge about theology . He was however an avid letter writer, and
his letters to Naegli are here:
http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/correns/mendel/index.html
again, nothing about Paley, or creation, or God. Naegli was Mendel's
main intellectual collaborator, and a strong critic of the idea of
species fixism that Gaertner, whom Mendel references but criticises,
exposed. And in his last letter to Naegli, Mendel writes:
'unfavorable changes in environmental conditions may result in reduced
reproduction, therefore they may cause a sexual weakening or complete
sterility, wherein the male organs always suffer first [,,,] The
naturally-occurring hybridizations in Hieracium should be ascribed to
temporary disturbances, which, if they were repeated often or became
permanent, would finally result in the disappearances of the species
involved, while one or other of the more happily organized progeny,
better adapted to the prevailing telluric and cosmic conditions, might
take up the struggle for existence successfully and continue it for a
long stretch of time, until finally the same fate overtook it"t"
Sounds pretty Darwinian to me, especially the "struggle for existence"
and te "better dapted to the ..conditions"
>He was working to falsify Darwinism.
Really? What amazing foresight then given that he carried out most of
his empirical work before he read the OoS. and hen he finally had the
chance to "falsify" Darwin and published his letters, not a single
word against him. He had a German translation of the OoS, and
underlined passages, but no comments, exclamation marks or anything
else in the margins that indicated disagreement.
According to one source, we have this from him though - note the
year, 1850, which would put it before the OoS,:
"A s soon as the earth in the course of time had achieved the
necessary capability for the formation and maintenance of organic
life, plants and animals of the lowest sorts first appeared. In time,
organic life developed more and more abundantly; the oldest forms
disappeared in part, to make space for new, more perfect ones. [,,,]
The naturally-occurring hybridizations in Hieracium should be ascribed
to temporary disturbances, which, if they were repeated often or
became permanent, would finally result in the disappearances of the
species involved, while one or other of the more happily organized
progeny, better adapted to the prevailing telluric and cosmic
conditions, might take up the struggle for existence successfully and
continue it for a long stretch of time, until finally the same fate
overtook it"
(Orel, Vitěslav (ed.) (1984). 'Mendels Hausarbeit in Naturgeschichte
von 1850'. In: Folia Mendeliana 18 - though I must admit i only ever
found a citation to this paper, and haven't read it myself, I remain
a little bit dubious about the authenticity.
But if it is authentic, then Mendel is referring to Matthias Jakob
Schleiden, whose book " Einige Blicke auf die Entwicklungsgeschichte
des vegetabilischen Organismus bei den Phanerogamen. (Some idea on the
evolution history of plants in the seed producing plants) he had read,
Schleiden, founder of modern cell theory, had argued that all plant
life originates from the single cell - he later enthusiastically
embarced Darwin's broader theory.
> The fact that Darwinists accept his facts and explain them in support
> of evolution does not mean the explanation supports evolution.
On the contrary, it does just that. What it does not do is to prove
that this is what Mendel intended. That is not of interest to the ToE
itself, but the history of science. The myth of Mendel the anti-
Darwinist was pretty much created in the 1980s by Callender. But he
gives next to no stupor for his view from Mendel's actual writing. To
be fair, neither did Fisher who claimed Mendel for Darwinism much
earlier, in the 1930s.
My own view is that Mendel did not really care either way. in his
letters to Naegli, he describes himself several times as "empiricist"
and scoffs at "rationalists" - he is doing hios studies on plants, and
leaves the "big picture" to others.
John S. Wilkins
> > > The book that I got the English translation of Mendel's paper from
> > > claimed that an uncut copy of Mendel's paper was found among Darwin's
> > > effects. It could have just been hear say. I can't remember the
> > > title of the book, but it also had Fisher's statistical analysis of
> > > Mendel's work demonstrating that the values were consistently too
> > > close to expected to have ocurred by chance.
> >
> > Two myths for the price of one!
>
> A reprint of the article was in the book along with Mendel's paper.
> No such evidence for Darwin having Mendel's unopened paper.
>
The myth here is Fisher's. He most certainly published the article.
Ron O
Wright's (I can't remember if it was Wright or Sturtevant) rebuttle
didn't call Fisher's conclusions a myth. The analysis was sound and
the data was consistently closer to expectation than can be expected,
but Wright pointed out that Mendel could have still obtained those
values. The values are suspicious especially for the traits affected
by environmental factors. Other researchers have looked at round and
wrinkled and found that it is difficult to differentiate the two types
depending on how much you water the plants during fruit development.
Round seed can looked wrinkled, and how were these scored? Mendel was
probably aquainted with this variation because he grew the pure types
up for several generations before starting his experiments. Mendel
even noted how the dwarf plants could be decreased in numbers for
scoring if they were out competed by the normal plants and Mendel had
to move them or plant them with enough space so that this would not
happen. It isn't just phenotype analysis, but random variation that
gives you the distribution of outcomes.
Some people have put up the notion that the plebes that counted the
seeds and took care of the plants for Mendel likely knew what numbers
he was looking for and may have hedged their bets. It is all
speculation, and in the end Mendel was right.
Ron Okimoto
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre-
Mitchell Coffey
Just to be clear, by "he" you mean Nägeli?
Also, Mendel mentions Darwin's work a time or two, but did he ever
express an opinion on it?
Mitchell
Mark Isaak
known before, and for making mincemeat of a creationist claim.
> (Orel, Viteslav (ed.) (1984). 'Mendels Hausarbeit in Naturgeschichte von
> 1850'. In: Folia Mendeliana 18 - though I must admit i only ever found a
> citation to this paper, and haven't read it myself, I remain a little
> bit dubious about the authenticity. But if it is authentic, then Mendel
> is referring to Matthias Jakob Schleiden, whose book " Einige Blicke auf
> die Entwicklungsgeschichte des vegetabilischen Organismus bei den
> Phanerogamen. (Some idea on the evolution history of plants in the seed
> producing plants) he had read, Schleiden, founder of modern cell theory,
> had argued that all plant life originates from the single cell - he
> later enthusiastically embarced Darwin's broader theory.
>
>
>> The fact that Darwinists accept his facts and explain them in support
>> of evolution does not mean the explanation supports evolution.
>
> On the contrary, it does just that. What it does not do is to prove that
> this is what Mendel intended. That is not of interest to the ToE itself,
> but the history of science. The myth of Mendel the anti- Darwinist was
> pretty much created in the 1980s by Callender. But he gives next to no
> stupor for his view from Mendel's actual writing. To be fair, neither
> did Fisher who claimed Mendel for Darwinism much earlier, in the 1930s.
>
> My own view is that Mendel did not really care either way. in his
> letters to Naegli, he describes himself several times as "empiricist"
> and scoffs at "rationalists" - he is doing hios studies on plants, and
> leaves the "big picture" to others.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Pure lies as usual.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Nov 22, 1:23 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> It seems that I read somewhere (it might have been Henig's "The Monk
>> in the Garden") that an "uncut" copy of Mendel's pea paper was found
>> among Darwin's papers.
>>
>> "Uncut" in this sense refers to the then-common practice of leaving
>> adjacent pages attached. In order to read the inner pages, you had to
>> cut them apart at the outer edges.
>>
>> First off, it occurs to me that I don't even know if authors got
>> reprints back then. For Darwin to have received an uncut version,
>> wouldn't Mendel have had to send him an entire issue of the journal?
>>
>> But my real question is, is this apocryphal? Did Darwin have access to
>> Mendel's work? Darwin was surely well-enough known by 1866 (when
>> Mendel published) that Mendel would have wanted him to know his work,
>> but could he have afforded to send out many copies of the journal? Or
>> afforded to have copies of his paper printed privately?
>Mendel was a Paleyan Creationist. He was working to falsify Darwinism.
>The fact that Darwinists accept his facts and explain them in support
>of evolution does not mean the explanation supports evolution.
Thanks for that clueless non sequitur.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John S. Wilkins
I shouldn't make gnomic utterances in the presence of other people.
I meant that Fisher started the now-mythical claim that Mendel faked his
results. He of course did not think Mendelian genetics was false, only
that Mendel's results were too good to be entirely true. A similar
debate started up when it was revealed that Pasteur rejected 90% of
*his* results to get evidence for pathogenicity.
The fact is that evidence was not statistical in the 19thC, but
impressionistic. It was widespread, and there was a very good reason for
it: statistics, as we know it and as Fisher developed it, had not been
invented yet. Statics, yes; statistics, no. Instead (and this might in
fact be a virtue IMO rather than a vice) researchers in the life
sciences got to know their subjects intimiately so they could recognise
when data was aberrant and noisy. It has a subjectivist element, sure,
but that approach employed the single best analytic classifier system
known to us - the one between an educated and experienced scientist's
ears. As Pasteur said, fortune favours a prepared mind.
Our emphasis on algorithm-driven analysis, a black box culture, leads to
the generation of vast amounts of data and again IMO very little
knowledge.
John S. Wilkins
Well him too, but no, I meant Mendel.
>
> Also, Mendel mentions Darwin's work a time or two, but did he ever
> express an opinion on it?
>
Obliquely. He accepted deep time, common descent and transmutation, but
so far as I can find, not NS. But then he's not unusual in that respect.
He thought hybridism (which didn't necessarily mean inter-specific
hybridism) was the source of evolution.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://tomclegg.net/tom/mendel.html
"Mendel himself was interested in the question of evolution, but
ironically his experiments were done in support of the theory of
special creation."
Again, some of his work was interpreted by Darwinists to support
evolution. The interpretation, of course, is error.
Ray
Ray Martinez
CORRECTION:
I simply meant to say that it is an **interpretation** of evidence.
And that Darwinists accepted certain facts produced by a Creationist
scientist.
Ray
Ron O
Fisher did not claim that Mendel faked his results, but there was
suspicion that he cooked the books a little to bring the numbers more
in line with expectation. People have analyzed Mendel's claims and
have concluded that he could have conducted all the breeding
experiments that he claimed to have done in the time and space that he
had available. Some have also claimed that Mendel may have not used
all the data that he collected. All of his traits segregated
independently. All except two were on different chromosomes and Peas
only have 7 chromosomes. I don't know what the probability is that he
got that lucky because I don't know all the traits Mendel had to
choose from. It is not known if Mendel did evaluate some linked
traits, but didn't know what to make of the data and so didn't use
it. Linkage would have messed up his segregation ratios.
Ron Okimoto
>
> The fact is that evidence was not statistical in the 19thC, but
> impressionistic. It was widespread, and there was a very good reason for
> it: statistics, as we know it and as Fisher developed it, had not been
> invented yet. Statics, yes; statistics, no. Instead (and this might in
> fact be a virtue IMO rather than a vice) researchers in the life
> sciences got to know their subjects intimiately so they could recognise
> when data was aberrant and noisy. It has a subjectivist element, sure,
> but that approach employed the single best analytic classifier system
> known to us - the one between an educated and experienced scientist's
> ears. As Pasteur said, fortune favours a prepared mind.
>
> Our emphasis on algorithm-driven analysis, a black box culture, leads to
> the generation of vast amounts of data and again IMO very little
> knowledge.
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
Ernest Major
<8859c7f7-f24e-40c6...@o15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Even assuming that the author is correct* (he's out of his field here),
that article says that Mendel was not an immutabilist.
* You denigrate Wikipedia as source, on the grounds that any random
individual can edit it; but Wikipedia at least has a level of review,
which makes it better than a web page by a random individual.
>
>Again, some of his work was interpreted by Darwinists to support
>evolution. The interpretation, of course, is error.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Mitchell Coffey
I would argue that that's OK, because it tends to generate less
nonsense than the analytic classifier system between an educated and
experienced scientist's ears, when the latter is allowed to its own
devices. And far, far less than when the analytic classifier system
is the one between the ears of those of us who aren't educated and
experienced scientists.
I don't understand what you would replace "algorithm-driven analysis,
a black box culture" with. Educated and experienced scientists,
gotten to be intimate pals with their subjects, produce or allow much
that proves to be nonsense, when finally ground through the black box.
Mitchell
Burkhard
> In message
> <8859c7f7-f24e-40c6-bb15-20e991555...@o15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
John W will have a better take on this, but I thought that for a
computer technician, it isn't half bad - in fact more carefully argued
I thought than Callender whom he pretty much channels. At least,
Clegg is using a better translation from the German than him.
The overall evidence however is pretty thin.
-Not a single quote from Mendel where he actually criticises or
attacks the ToE, or any of its central concepts
- instead, a somewhat torturous inference from silence - Mendel knew
the ToE and did not actively endorse it, hence he was against it
- this in turn apparently based on the idea that because of his
religious background, he simply y must have been against it, even if
there is no evidence - ignoring that there were quite a number of
clerics who immediately after publication came put if favour of the
OoS. The Reverend Charles Kingsley praised it, Frederick Temple, who
was to become Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed it, and the deeply
religious Asa Gray promoted it. So why should it be so impossible that
an Austrian Monk, in one of the most liberal environments possible,
feel at best neutral about it.
- the article mentions that Mendel criticised both Kölreuter and von
Gärtner - both fixists. Somehow that it transformed into a position
ion favour of fixism. (Callander if I remember correctly goes as far
as accusing Mendel of dishonesty to match the evidence to his theory)
- he mentions that Callander uses a quote that seems to clearly
indicate that Mendel disassociates himself form the fixist Gaertner as
meaning the opposite. But Callander uses a flawed translation, Clegg.
sis much better and shows that this is just not true. He himself is
however trying to make the quote into something it simply isn't, and
fails to interpret it in its historical context. If in 19th century
Austria,with its rigid academic and general social pecking order, a
learned amateur like Mendel criticises an established Professor with
the words: "this opinion cannot be adjudged unconditionally valid",
then this means in today's parlance: "this guy is an idiot and his
opinion untenable"
- the article suffers form confirmation bias and only discusses the
(few and ambiguous) quotes that just "may" indicate scepticism of the
ToE by Mendel - but it doesn't even mention all the citations from
Mendel which seem directly inspired by the ToE. In particular, it does
not discuss his frequent use of the term Kampf ums Dasein (struggle
for existence) tat at the time was a widely used catchphrase by German
Darwinists, and aslo Naegeli. It is also used by Anton Kerner who had
studied together with Mendel (and received a copy of his article from
him) and who was a clear Darwinist.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@earthlink.net>:
>Post of the Month nomination, for teaching me some history that I hadn't
>known before, and for making mincemeat of a creationist claim.
Seconded.
And FWIW, I think this error from near the end is just too
perfect to be unintentional:
"The myth of Mendel the anti- Darwinist was pretty much
created in the 1980s by Callender. But he gives next to no
stupor for his view from Mendel's actual writing."
I'd say "stupor" was Callender's best product... ;-)
Bob C.
John S. Wilkins
I only have one thing to add here (and I could not have done such a good
summary and investigation myself, Burkhard).
In the period during which Mendel was doing his work there were a series
of conferences held in Belgium for Roman Catholics to discuss science
and faith, and after Daltonian chemistry, there were a good few
discussions on evolution. Roughly even numbers of Catholics were pro as
against. Nearly all scientists were pro.
There can be no presumption that Mendel's religion, or indeed anyone's
religion if they were a scientist, had much effect upon their reception
of the theory of evolution (entomologist Erich Wasmann being one
exception). Mendel made no disparaging remarks about transmutation or
common descent and I read him as trying to find an alternative
explanation for that through hybridism (within and between species).
Paul, Harry W. 1979. The edge of contingency: French Catholic reaction
to scientific change from Darwin to Duhem. Gainesville: University
Presses of Florida: A University of Florida Book.
Wasmann, Erich. 1910. Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution.
Translated by A. M. Buchanan. 3rd ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner. Original edition, 1906.
>
>
>
> >
> > * You denigrate Wikipedia as source, on the grounds that any random
> > individual can edit it; but Wikipedia at least has a level of review,
> > which makes it better than a web page by a random individual.
> >
> >
> >
> > >Again, some of his work was interpreted by Darwinists to support
> > >evolution. The interpretation, of course, is error.
John S. Wilkins
I'm not denigrating the use of statistical reasoning. What I am
denigrating is the use of programs, especially in biology, that relieve
the researchers from *understanding* what they are doing. Knowledge is a
function of human understanding, not of computer processing. And this
means that you cannot replace understanding with algorithms unless you
fully comprehend what the algorithms are doing and what that signifies.
It seems to me that few researchers actually do understand the
algorithms they are almost mandated to use by the journal editors. Some
do, of course; and they tend to be the most theoretically significant
researchers. However, the vast bulk (I'm thinking medical research here)
just grind the data through the sausage machine.
Moreover, if understanding is what constitutes knowledge, and I think it
is, then that suggests one *can* know things without such analyses.
Sure, there is always the problem of psychologism and subjectivity (or
worse, social relativity, which I call the German Authority Syndrome),
but we can train people to counter that, more or less, without the
basically illusory promise of automatic objectivity by "theory-free"
processing. A computer is just another analytic tool, and the algorithms
are no different in kind than a pencil analysis, except that you don't
need to know what they mean to do it by computer.
Black boxing might be inevitable, but we shouldn't make it a virtue.
Burkhard
You are _ordered_ never to use this term again!
Michael Siemon
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 26/11/2010 01:50, John S. Wilkins wrote:
..
> > Moreover, if understanding is what constitutes knowledge, and I think it
> > is, then that suggests one *can* know things without such analyses.
> > Sure, there is always the problem of psychologism and subjectivity (or
> > worse, social relativity, which I call the German Authority Syndrome),
>
> You are _ordered_ never to use this term again!
>
jah, jah ... :-)
John S. Wilkins
> > Sure, there is always the problem of psychologism and subjectivity (or
> > worse, social relativity, which I call the German Authority Syndrome),
>
> You are _ordered_ never to use this term again!
Ja*wohl* mein Kommandant!
Seriously, you can't say that there aren't German systematists who
prevent anyone from challenging their taxonomies simply by force of
authority? Even Mayr, no slouch himself in this respect, admitted as
much.
Burkhard
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Sure, there is always the problem of psychologism and subjectivity (or
> > > worse, social relativity, which I call the German Authority Syndrome),
>
> > You are _ordered_ never to use this term again!
>
> Ja*wohl* mein Kommandant!
>
> Seriously, you can't say that there aren't German systematists who
> prevent anyone from challenging their taxonomies simply by force of
> authority? Even Mayr, no slouch himself in this respect, admitted as
> much.
> --
Look, there is a reason I'm a Scot now, despite the occasional
relapse :o)
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
With Knox and Calvin having had so much influence in Scotland, did you
notice a difference?
Burkhard
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 01:37:39 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
Och aye, we found ways of working around them :p)
Today we slapped scores of our students at graduation with a bonnet
made from the breeches of John Knox.
chris thompson
A colleague of mine who had an appointment at a major medical research
hospital here in NYC told me that the clinical people were not to do
their own statistical analyses. They were required to bring on someone
from that math or statistics departments to work with them. It seems
that some places are aware of this problem- I think it's at least
partly the use of canned stat packages where you just plug in the
numbers and magic comes out the other end.
Chris
>
> Moreover, if understanding is what constitutes knowledge, and I think it
> is, then that suggests one *can* know things without such analyses.
> Sure, there is always the problem of psychologism and subjectivity (or
> worse, social relativity, which I call the German Authority Syndrome),
> but we can train people to counter that, more or less, without the
> basically illusory promise of automatic objectivity by "theory-free"
> processing. A computer is just another analytic tool, and the algorithms
> are no different in kind than a pencil analysis, except that you don't
> need to know what they mean to do it by computer.
>
> Black boxing might be inevitable, but we shouldn't make it a virtue.
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
Mitchell Coffey
I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
hive of scum and villainy.
Mitchell
Ron O
and without cool light sabers to deal with the miscreants.
Ron Okimoto
Mitchell Coffey
I'm commenting on this point:
> I read him as trying to find an alternative
> explanation for that through hybridism (within and between species).
Which, it bears noting, was a perfectly scientific position at the
time and by no means pro-creationist.
> Paul, Harry W. 1979. The edge of contingency: French Catholic reaction
> to scientific change from Darwin to Duhem. Gainesville: University
> Presses of Florida: A University of Florida Book.
>
> Wasmann, Erich. 1910. Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution.
> Translated by A. M. Buchanan. 3rd ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
> Trübner. Original edition, 1906.
A couple of things you might emphasize. There's been a lot of
craziness to the effect that religion is perpetually at war with
science, or some such. There's also even badder craziness by many non-
Catholics in majority Protestant countries to the effect that
Catholicism is wedded to literal readings of the Bible. Both
creationists and the Pro-Science crowd tends to assume way-wrongly
that Mendel would have necessarily been all snitty about evolution and
a old Earth.
Now, the 1860s were a bumpy period for the Roman Church; had the
Church any official dog in this fight; would they have put any
pressure on their priesthood to take a particular side on it? It was
after the period we're talking about that there was some Catholic ID-
ish objection to Darwin, was it not?
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
That's not the R2 you're looking for.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
Oh, /that/ problem; I think I now understand. But we never had /that/
problem in Economics.
Mitchell
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 26, 4:04 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 01:37:39 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 26, 7:40 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> >> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> > > Sure, there is always the problem of psychologism and subjectivity (or
>> >> > > worse, social relativity, which I call the German Authority Syndrome),
>>
>> >> > You are _ordered_ never to use this term again!
>>
>> >> Ja*wohl* mein Kommandant!
>>
>> >> Seriously, you can't say that there aren't German systematists who
>> >> prevent anyone from challenging their taxonomies simply by force of
>> >> authority? Even Mayr, no slouch himself in this respect, admitted as
>> >> much.
>> >> --
>>
>> >Look, there is a reason I'm a Scot now, despite the occasional
>> >relapse :o)
>>
>> With Knox and Calvin having had so much influence in Scotland, did you
>> notice a difference?
>
>Och aye, we found ways of working around them :p)
>Today we slapped scores of our students at graduation with a bonnet
>made from the breeches of John Knox.
That sounds constructive.
deadrat
Black boxing is not inevitable. Trust in the appearance of the Great White
Hope.
> I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
> where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
> time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
> hive of scum and villainy.
And with those algorithms, what is social "science"?
> Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
I don't know. I do have an opinion regarding "social science,"
however.
Mitchell Coffey
John S. Wilkins
> On Nov 25, 8:50 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
...
> > It seems to me that few researchers actually do understand the
> > algorithms they are almost mandated to use by the journal editors. Some
> > do, of course; and they tend to be the most theoretically significant
> > researchers. However, the vast bulk (I'm thinking medical research here)
> > just grind the data through the sausage machine.
> >
> > Moreover, if understanding is what constitutes knowledge, and I think it
> > is, then that suggests one *can* know things without such analyses.
> > Sure, there is always the problem of psychologism and subjectivity (or
> > worse, social relativity, which I call the German Authority Syndrome),
> > but we can train people to counter that, more or less, without the
> > basically illusory promise of automatic objectivity by "theory-free"
> > processing. A computer is just another analytic tool, and the algorithms
> > are no different in kind than a pencil analysis, except that you don't
> > need to know what they mean to do it by computer.
> >
> > Black boxing might be inevitable, but we shouldn't make it a virtue.
>
> I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
> where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
> time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
> hive of scum and villainy.
Medicine may be a wretched hive of scum and villainy through rampant
subjectivism, but medical *research* is a mixed bag. In ten years of my
being privy to all the research going on at a major medical research
institute in Australia (I did the annual reports and attended many of
the talks), and despite the introduction of a bioinformatics department
of tame statisticians with many black boxen, all the major advances were
made by researchers who knew the biological systems they were working
with intimately, to the point they could imagine the processes they
subsequently ascertained.
Few if any discoveries were made by data mining microarray data, or
other statistical techniques. One exception to this was the use of
neural net classifiers, but as the system developer noted as the
coauthor of a paper we wrote, if you don't understand the organisms and
systems, all the classifiers will not help you do so. Ultimately, human
understanding is what makes the discoveries.
Social science is not all that different, except that nobody *does*
understand the systems they are trying to investigate, and everybody
thinks they do. In economics, even that latter constraint is false.
Ron O
As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
up for that one.
Ron Okimoto
John S. Wilkins
> On Nov 26, 10:58 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 11:51 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 26, 10:29 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >
...
> > > > I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
> > > > where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
> > > > time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
> > > > hive of scum and villainy.
> >
> > > > Mitchell-
> >
> > > and without cool light sabers to deal with the miscreants.
> >
> > > Ron Okimoto
> >
> > That's not the R2 you're looking for.
> >
> > Mitchell Coffey-
>
> As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
> up for that one.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Oh God. Another punnet thread.
chris thompson
And with those algorithms, social science is...what?
Chris
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> A couple of things you might emphasize. There's been a lot of
> craziness to the effect that religion is perpetually at war with
> science, or some such. There's also even badder craziness by many non-
> Catholics in majority Protestant countries to the effect that
> Catholicism is wedded to literal readings of the Bible. Both
> creationists and the Pro-Science crowd tends to assume way-wrongly
> that Mendel would have necessarily been all snitty about evolution and
> a old Earth.
>
> Now, the 1860s were a bumpy period for the Roman Church; had the
> Church any official dog in this fight; would they have put any
> pressure on their priesthood to take a particular side on it? It was
> after the period we're talking about that there was some Catholic ID-
> ish objection to Darwin, was it not?
For a long while much earlier, the Roman Catholic church in Europe was
against reading the bible at all, or at least when translated. If you
didn't understand Latin then you were supposed to just look at the
stained-glass windows and the statues and so forth.
Latterly, of course, they've been concerned about evolution as the
origin of human beings excluding the narrative of Original Sin,
without which there isn't much point to the entire religion.
I don't know about the period in detail as it touched that church - I
have an idea that the to-them-rebellious Church of England had a
strong "High Church" pro-Roman movement, and on the other hand a
pseudo-rational life-after-death Spiritualism was big, Alfred Russel
Wallace was into it - but the Catholic Church managed to be very
strong in certain places through most of the twentieth century so they
can't have done too badly from it. And on the other hand, isn't it
when a previously dominant religion is under threat from other
churches or other beliefs, that it turns towards dogmatic,
unthoughtful, unsceptical belief in its own doctrines? If they /were/
in trouble as to popular support, I think they would harden.
Victor Eijkhout
> The myth of Mendel the anti-
> Darwinist was pretty much created in the 1980s by Callender. But he
> gives next to no stupor
That last word will be fixed when the post goes in the archive, right?
Victor.
PS good post
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Ron O
> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 10:58 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 11:51 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 10:29 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> ...
> > > > > I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
> > > > > where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
> > > > > time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
> > > > > hive of scum and villainy.
>
> > > > > Mitchell-
>
> > > > and without cool light sabers to deal with the miscreants.
>
> > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > That's not the R2 you're looking for.
>
> > > Mitchell Coffey-
>
> > As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
> > up for that one.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Oh God. Another punnet thread.
Just independently assorted peas in the same pod.
Ron Okimoto
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre-
hersheyh
> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 10:58 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 11:51 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 10:29 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> ...
> > > > > I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
> > > > > where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
> > > > > time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
> > > > > hive of scum and villainy.
>
> > > > > Mitchell-
>
> > > > and without cool light sabers to deal with the miscreants.
>
> > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > That's not the R2 you're looking for.
>
> > > Mitchell Coffey-
>
> > As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
> > up for that one.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Oh God. Another punnet thread.
Someone ought to poisson the perpetrator.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
r norman
<hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 8:45 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 26, 10:58 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 26, 11:51 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 26, 10:29 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> > > > > I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
>> > > > > where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
>> > > > > time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
>> > > > > hive of scum and villainy.
>>
>> > > > > Mitchell-
>>
>> > > > and without cool light sabers to deal with the miscreants.
>>
>> > > > Ron Okimoto
>>
>> > > That's not the R2 you're looking for.
>>
>> > > Mitchell Coffey-
>>
>> > As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
>> > up for that one.
>>
>> > Ron Okimoto
>>
>> Oh God. Another punnet thread.
>
>Someone ought to poisson the perpetrator.
Looks fishy to me.
Burkhard
Fin, have it your way
Walter Bushell
<2193f930-aae9-4e1c...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
> > > up for that one.
> >
> > > Ron Okimoto
> >
> > Oh God. Another punnet thread.
>
> Someone ought to poisson the perpetrator.
> > --
Another fishy distribution pun?
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Mitchell Coffey
> On Nov 26, 8:45 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 10:58 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 26, 11:51 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 26, 10:29 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > > > > > I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
> > > > > > where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
> > > > > > time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
> > > > > > hive of scum and villainy.
>
> > > > > > Mitchell-
>
> > > > > and without cool light sabers to deal with the miscreants.
>
> > > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > > That's not the R2 you're looking for.
>
> > > > Mitchell Coffey-
>
> > > As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
> > > up for that one.
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > Oh God. Another punnet thread.
>
> Someone ought to poisson the perpetrator.
FIts 'em to a 'T'. You should be Chi-ded for that one.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
I suppose I wasn't think about discoveries so much as determining
whether things are likely true or not.
> Social science is not all that different, except that nobody *does*
> understand the systems they are trying to investigate, and everybody
> thinks they do. In economics, even that latter constraint is false.
>
A case is to be made that political scientists understand the system
of US Congressional election reasonable well. For all the punditry
regarding our recent mid-term election, it was readily predicted by a
simple least-squares line with the historical number of seats lost by
the incumbent President's party dependent on the growth in real GDP
over the previous year. Virtually everything discussed by way of
explanation during and after the recent unpleasantness was nearly
trivial, other than the economy, stupid. (The exceptional point might
be that the Tea Party, by imposing unstable candidates on the
Republicans in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada, denied the Republicans
control of the US Senate. Even there, the conventional wisdom in the
US is that this election was the Tea Party's moment.)
And economist, actually, do think they understand the systems they are
trying to investigate. While the profession is undertaking a general
backing off on that at the moment, they'll get over it.
Mitchell
John S. Wilkins
Mitchell Coffey
> Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 10:23 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 8:45 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 26, 10:58 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 26, 11:51 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 26, 10:29 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > > > ...
> > > > > > > > I don't know about biology, but medical research is the
> > > > > > > > classic case where depending on the wise subjectivist proves
> > > > > > > > wrong time after time. And without the algorithms social
> > > > > > > > science would be a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
>
> > > > > > > > Mitchell-
>
> > > > > > > and without cool light sabers to deal with the miscreants.
>
> > > > > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > > > > That's not the R2 you're looking for.
>
> > > > > > Mitchell Coffey-
>
> > > > > As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
> > > > > up for that one.
>
> > > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > > Oh God. Another punnet thread.
>
> > > Someone ought to poisson the perpetrator.
>
>
> He's just testing us students.
>
Over a Guinness, of course.
Mitchell
Ron O
Fisher will exact his distribution on all that test the limits.
Ron Okimoto
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre-
J. J. Lodder
> On Nov 26, 8:45 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 10:58 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 26, 11:51 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 26, 10:29 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > > > > > I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
> > > > > > where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
> > > > > > time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
> > > > > > hive of scum and villainy.
> >
> > > > > > Mitchell-
> >
> > > > > and without cool light sabers to deal with the miscreants.
> >
> > > > > Ron Okimoto
> >
> > > > That's not the R2 you're looking for.
> >
> > > > Mitchell Coffey-
> >
> > > As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
> > > up for that one.
> >
> > > Ron Okimoto
> >
> > Oh God. Another punnet thread.
>
> Someone ought to poisson the perpetrator.
The classic method of becoming a poisson statistic
is being kicked to death by a horse,
Jan
Walter Bushell
<2193f930-aae9-4e1c...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 8:45 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 10:58 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 26, 11:51 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 26, 10:29 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > > > > > I don't know about biology, but medical research is the classic case
> > > > > > where depending on the wise subjectivist proves wrong time after
> > > > > > time. And without the algorithms social science would be a wretched
> > > > > > hive of scum and villainy.
> >
> > > > > > Mitchell-
> >
> > > > > and without cool light sabers to deal with the miscreants.
> >
> > > > > Ron Okimoto
> >
> > > > That's not the R2 you're looking for.
> >
> > > > Mitchell Coffey-
> >
> > > As someone that is not the least square, I am pround to have set you
> > > up for that one.
> >
> > > Ron Okimoto
> >
> > Oh God. Another punnet thread.
>
> Someone ought to poisson the perpetrator.
> > --
But who will do the distribute the Poisson to the punatraitor?
r norman
Provided you are a Prussian officer.