Bignose

Ok, so we're back to my point which is that you have a problem with the application of statistics, not the math itself. If this is correct, please confirm, because it certain hasn't been clear to date.

Can I ask you to please answer this direct question: what is ambiguous in the definition of a mean = sum of all elements divided by the count of those elements? You claimed it was ambiguous here: Let's start simple and clear up what ambiguities you have on the mean before we talk about variances.

I still think there is a gross misunderstanding. You don't prove a definition. You define a definition. Then you can use proofs to what rules that defined quantity will follow, how it interacts with other defined or proved quantities, and so on. You are still railing against how the terms are interpreted. "such as with the classical median, mean or mode, these are classics in which have been made clear that they are also ambiguous". The definitions of these terms are iron clad. How people use them, how they are interpreted and so on -- that's all game for discussion. But I don't see how you can call a definition ambiguous for these terms. The definitions use well established definitions from mathematics like addition and division -- clearly not ambiguous. Or, let me put it this way... what is ambiguous in the definition of a mean = sum of all elements divided by the count of those elements? In other words, I still don't understand exactly what your problem with statistics is, nor do I understand exactly what you think can replace it.

So you're saying that you'd rather not know the answer at all if you can't know with 100% certainty? I guess I'd much, much rather have estimates for answers to all the questions I asked above rather than just give up because they couldn't be known with perfect accuracy. Way to duck the issue too. Maybe you ought to change your stance from 'most' to 'virtually none'. I didn't even break out the real big question: how do you plan to do quantum mechanics calculations without statistics? There is absolutely no '100% certainty' in doing QM calculations, yet its been pretty darn successful (as have all the other calculations I mentioned above) -- including helping design the electronics you are using to post here. Really? You can't figure it out from the context? Oh wait, that would require some estimation/inferring/approximating wouldn't it? Well, let me spell it out for you with 100% certainty. My opinion -- and I suspect many others' here -- is that statistics is perfectly valid. And I suspect your opinion of their non-validity is based on some instances where statistics have been misinterpreted, abused, or misunderstood. It is also my opinion that there is a gross naivity on the number of models that allow for perfect calculation as well the number of instances where anything anywhere can be known with 100% certainty. It is really humorous that you keep asking about the non-validity of statistics, when, in fact, the mathematics of statistics themselves can and are known with 100% certainty. The mathematics of statistics start from axioms like all other math and the formulas are derived directly from those axioms with proofs and everything. Math is nice like that, all the statements can be proven. What you really keep asking about is the non-validity of statistics in their application to the real world. A fair question, to be sure, but I think you really need to think about what you're saying before you insist on 100% assurances to answer questions. Think about that the next time you take any medicine, ever. There is no way to be 100% sure that it will be effective on whats infecting you. And, there is no way to be 100% sure that what is infecting you will kill you. But, I for one would rather tips the odds in my favor via medication than waiting for 100% confidence. Feel free to live you life how you want, though.

I think you had best define "most". I, for one, would like you to explain how to answer the two problems posited in this thread. 1) How to estimate the amount of active drug in pills without statistics? Related: how should the FDA decide is a drug is effective or not without statistics? 2) How to estimate the composition of concrete when high volumes are being produced every day without statistics? and then I have a few more 3) How to estimate the amount of rainfall that will occur 10 days from now without statistics? 4) How to estimate the batting average of the Cardinals' starting third baseman this season without statistics? 5) How to estimate how many tractors manufactured this year will break down due to a drivetrain failure without statistics? 6) How to estimate whether a patient with a certain amount of cancer should choose between chemotherapy, radiation treatment, or invasive surgery without statistics? I look forward to your answer.

vextryyn, per your last line here, I'm going to give some criticism. I hope you understand that in science, critism isn't personal, but meant to help both you and I understand better. Firstly, thank you for your creativity. Creativeness is needed in science, and is always welcomed. Secondly, what you have here isn't very scientific at all. It is more like something you'd find in science fiction writing. What you need is specific predictions, and then evidence that supports that prediction. This is how science works, by finding the ideas that make predictions that agree best with what is observed. So, what you need is some predictions based on your idea, and then something that we can look at to see if those predictions are right or not. I.e. something like "Element 534/1 has x specific signature in the X-Ray spectrum". Then, we can look at the X-Ray data from a black hole, and see if that signature is found or not. This is the prediction/measurement cycle that science is. Is there any way you can provide that or something similar for us?

See, this is a gross misunderstanding on your part. The evidence does NOT mathematically prove the BB. Nothing will. Science isn't out to prove anything. This new data just shows that the BB theory makes predictions that agree with what is measured. BB theory has done this a lot, very successfully. That's why it is the favored model right now. But, if someday, some other theory comes along and makes even better predictions than BB, that that some other theory will be the most favored. Because the theory that makes the most accurate predictions will be the most favored. Science is a pure meritocracy. You clearly don't personally favor the BB theory, and you have your own idea. That's fine. Problem is that science is not going to come around to your point of view until it is demonstrated that your idea makes as many or better predictions than BB. Talk about something not right between the ears, I don't get how this is so hard to understand and accept. And you clearly haven't accepted it, because you keep wanting to tell us about confirmation bias away from your idea, but when asked for concrete predictions, none are forthcoming. Obviously, you seem to think that the best way to get your idea accepted is to try to convince us all that we're prejudiced against it, instead of actually proving anything scientifically meaningful, like predictions.

You're the one who told me that the authors were expected to compare their data to "any other model". What I did isn't a strawman if it is your exact position. All I was doing was taking your exact same logic and expanding it to any of the many, many other theories that have been offered throughout the history of mankind of the origins of the world and universe, and asking you how far back you wanted to go. Whatever, now you want to quibble (lawyer-ly) about specific meanings of words? If you want to talk about truths, the truth is that the BB theory makes predictions that agree pretty darn well with the newly measured BICEP2 data. Until some other theory can make a prediction that's equally as good, no other theory will be considered as scientifically good. Absolutely, relatively, or any other adjective you want to use. As for the red herring about funding -- again science is done by human beings. Resources for funding are finite. So, yes, sometimes things are not funded as much as they should be. And sometimes petty politics does affect who gets funded and when. I still have faith that in the end, science makes progress because we've stuck to the concept of favoring the ideas that make the more accurate predictions. If you really think you have a better way, you surely haven't demonstrated it.

How do you get to just say that? Where does it end? Why aren't you railing against the BICEP2 data not comparing to a geocentric model as well? You got a bunch of those... Ptolemeic, Greek, Roman, etc. Really, all of those should be compared, too, right? How about the one where the earth is riding on the back of a turtle... BICEP2 didn't address that, either, did it? When I type "Big Bang Theory" into Google Scholar, it results 162,000 results. Basically, even new paper really ought to reference all 162,000 of those papers, right? And compare every single result. Not to mention all the other ones, like a steady state cosmology, etc. Really, every paper should probably have over a million references, shouldn't it? Stop me when this gets too ridiculous. Why do you think you should get to force anyone to write about something? Why are you taking away their right to publish what they want to publish? In this case, that paper only wanted to compare the BB predictions with their measurements. ONE MORE TIME: if anyone else wants to compare a different set of predictions to this data, THEY CAN! THE DATA IS FREELY AVAILABLE. Why is this so hard to understand?!!?!?!?!? I don't get why you think someone else is compelled to write about things they don't want to write about. If you want to see those comparisons, DO IT! Science is NOT about truth. How many times do I have to repeat this? Science is about accurate prediction of phenomena. If you want truth, you are looking at philosophy.

Once again, it is not on them to compare to every single model that had ever been presented ever. If someone else wants to use that data, it is publicly and freely available. What is stopping you or anyone else from comparing their measurements to your predictions? Nothing. This research group was interested in comparing to the predictions from BB, and that's what they published. So if you want to see how the data supports other ideas: do it, then, dammit! Make some predictions with your ideas, compare to the measurements given, and publish it.

If you're going to claim success for your lawyering skills, maybe you ought to actually, I don't know, provide evidence of this? You STILL STILL STILL have not provided any quantitative predictions for "yours and others that are consistent." If your idea really is "consistent", this should be a cakewalk to do, yet you still refuse. Exactly why is that? My lawyering skills have deduced that it doesn't exist and you're just angry about that fact. Besides the fact -- that has been pointed out to you many, many times now -- the standard for evidence in the eyes of the law is significantly different than the standards of evidence in science. Deliberately so, too. Somehow, I'm not surprised that you are a lawyer -- the obfuscation techniques demonstrated here fit right in the stereotype. And, just so there is no confusion, I fully admit that that was a biased statement. Let's get back to the main point -- provide some evidence that the data supports that your claim is consistent, or just drop it. Admit that the data fits the BB theory better. You can fix all these issues about biases and psychology by actually showing us that the data fits your model, too!!!. Otherwise, and again I will fully admit whatever biases you want to attribute to this: I will continue to be biased toward the model that makes the more accurate predictions. Because that's actually, you know, science. Objective, data-driven, statistically significant science.

So you're saying that when someone publishes data, they have to compare their data to every possible model or there? Lest they show bias? I disagree. Anyone who thinks the data supports their idea can use that data. It's actually all on the BICEP2 webpage. All they have to do is download it and compare it to their own predictions. And then publish it. As I asked in my last post, any chance this will be happening for the idea you are supporting?

...and we're back to kristalris' 'Einstein at 16' trope. It is amazing how long you're keeping this going. Usually, when a show starts repeating itself, it has 'jumped the shark' and cancellation isn't to far behind because people don't want to see it anymore. I concur with swansont 100% in that your citing Einstein seems grossly disingenuous at best, considering what Einstein actually did. The kernel of Einstein's ideas may have formed at age 16, but at least he was smart enough then not to go around claiming his idea was right without any predictions. One can't help but wish that maybe this was a lesson you should have taken more to heart from your idol.

I don't see how any of that demonstrates your idea that the psychology of someone affects how accurate that graph is. You certainly didn't provide any actual evidence of it, just a lot more story telling. And, you kind of danced around the reality of the situation in there: other models get to use that data too. If those other models, either in the original or a modified form, fits the measurements better than the original model, then the other one will gain favor. This happens all the time. That's why data is published. That's why I asked about the last 25 years of the Arp model -- have the last 25 years of data helped support his idea or demonstrate it wrong in other ways. I'd really like an answer, because I don't know. And ultimately, it really is simple. Better agreement is all that science is looking for. So, if you truly believe your model is better, when can we expect you to publish graphs of the same kind? Show us the predictions (and I would suggest explicit detail on how you calculated those prediction) and compare them to the current best predictions and new data. No psychology; no madness; no DSM V; none of this other obfuscation. I just want to see how big the delta is between your prediction, the current best predictions, and the measured data. I plan to judge the model objectively in terms of how well its predictions agree with measurements. I can think of no fairer way.

You keep railing on this. I'm going to give you one chance to prove your point: Please open http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3985.pdf Please look at figure 2. The red lines are the predictions made by theory. The black markers with the error bars around them are the measurements made by BICEP2. What "instrumentation between the ears" is needed to compare the accuracy of the predictions with the measurements taken? And how does this affect how I should look at the graph?

I agree that people don't always treat each other well. And yes, that still happens today. Unfortunately it happens in all aspects of life, science included. I guess I understand the current maturity level of mankind and understand that this is going to happen. But, in terms of 'right'... that's exactly what science is. Figuring out which models are more right than others. I am not saying that it was ok to treat someone poorly, even if their model turned out to be less right. I am saying that in terms of seeing how good your prediction is, that how someone was treated is irrelevant -- despite your repeated bring it up. I find it a little ironic that on the one hand, you seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be treated poorly based on their ideas. That is, arguing that ideas should stand on their own merits. Yet, you keep bringing up examples of that not happening -- instead of presenting you idea clearly so it can stand on its own merit. You seem so vested in calling out some kind of discrimination that you still don't ever present your model so that we can judge it on its own merit. And maybe that's the biggest point here. We are trying not to judge you the person. We are trying to judge the model. A model you don't present super clearly. And when we ask for clarification, you immediately jump to us judging the person. Instead of clarifying your model. Well, the rules here say we can't attack a person, and the mods do a good job enforcing that rule. So, just present your model and the mods will make sure that it is on the model that gets questioned, not you.

So, just to be sure I am clear exactly what you're saying: That Swansont, YdoaPs, and myself are making an unsafe environment because we have skepticism in thinking that light polarization data didn't satisfy your vague prediction of redshifted light? As for the larger issue. The simple truth is that science is still conducted by human beings. Sometimes they aren't treated fairly. But if the predictions are actually more accurate than other ideas, it will eventually win out. If the Arp idea was so good, what has happened in the last 25 years? We've continued to take more and more accurate measurements, including the ones that started this thread. Is that model still viable? Or has it lost more and more favor simply because as more data comes in, its predictions are shown to be worse and worse? Frankly, if you aren't prepared to demonstrate that that model is still just as accurate as the current best models, I don't know what bringing up stuff that happened more than 25 years ago has to do with the question of how accurate your predictions are today.

The hint is in that R. Convert to spherical coordinates and see how it goes for you.

http://miktex.org/

I wouldn't use the adjective "many" there, personally. There appear to be some models out there that seem to allow some solutions that travel back in time. But, we know that those models aren't completely right, because some of the predictions they make are just plain wrong. That is, the models are good at predicting some thing (look at general relativity or quantum mechanics), but extending those models beyond the domain where they are good can be tricky. This is why experiments are conducted, to see just how large or small a domain the models are good. So you've got some known-to-be-imperfect models that maybe make some predictions in some known-to-be-not-very-wellverified domains, and no obvious way to test the models in those domains. In short, most physicists won't accept such relatively weak conjectures that time travel is really valid until we can get strong, well-verified models and straight-forward statistically significant ways of testing those models. Time travel is a staple of science fiction writers, but in actual physics today, a good physicist would have to agree that it is a very unsupported idea. Does that mean it can't happen or will never be discovered? Certainly not, but based on the knowledge we have right now, it doesn't seem too likely or feasible.

I'm not so much touchy as I am tired of being told how rotten our science is in your eyes without anything tangible being shown that your ways is better. As well as I am tired of asking direct questions and getting no similarly direct answers. It makes me think that you are insincere in your supposed attempt to actually make things better. If you truly wanted to make things better, you would do a better job of answering our questions to help us understand. I don't ask questions simply to see my words on a computer screen -- I am asking them because I want to more fully understand your points, even if I possibly don't agree with them. Not answering direct questions tells me that you don't really care if I understand or not, and then it makes me wonder if you understand the purpose of an information sharing tool like a forum. I wouldn't be so 'touchy' about all this if it wasn't a pattern you repeat over and over and over. What you call being 'touchy', I would call being direct and asking you straight up to answer some questions.

It's not a strawman when you actually do it! If you knew all those links have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, why would you post them?!? It takes literally 5 seconds to highlight them and hit the delete key. All this is to me is more evidence that you simply delight in obfuscating the real discussion. Whenever anyone actually asks for something specific, the response is to throw up as much chaff as possible and hope the confusions buys you some time. Why this continual refusal to answer questions directly?

Good news is that science doesn't care who you are either. All it cares about is how accurate your predictions are to measurements. So, I look forward to seeing your math, the predictions made by that math, and comparing how accurately those predictions agree with measurement.

Not to be a smart ass, but have you Googled it? https://wiki.python.org/moin/GuiProgramming Python has a lot of different GUIs available to with it, from tk built in, to the nice looking wxPython, all the way to supporting web frameworks as AtomicMaster said. I have used all these and others at various times depending on the application needs.

No. What I've seen you try to do is claim that your generic, wishy-washy, non-specific prediction of red shift is somehow validated by polarization data. I am not going to speculate on what's with your psychology, but I will say that I don't think that this is a broad problem of misinterpretation; rather a much more specific personal problem of misinterpretation. I think that you are ascribing too much philosophy to science. At its purest form, science is prediction and agreement with measurement. The "interpretation of that measurement" is related in that there could be various ways that a measurement that doesn't have good agreement with prediction affects how prediction needs to be re-done. But, the data itself is the data. If a thermometer reads 100 deg C, then -- unless you have strong reason to suspect the measuring device is broken -- the temperature is 100 deg C. Period. Again, if you were expecting it to read 200, then there may be various interpretations as to why it isn't reading 200. But the reading itself is solid. This why I don't get all this obfuscation about polarization and red shift. Polarization is an orientation of the light. Red shifting is the change in frequency of light. They aren't the same thing. I can't stick a thermometer under my tongue and get my weight. And you can't take my temperature alone and tell me I am over or underweight. There is no arguing about interpretations here. And even if somehow this arguing this help your cause -- I really disagree, obviously -- the simple truth is that someone predicted a certain amount of polarization with this model and the measurements agree with that. If there is any interpretation, isn't it rather obvious that one should interpret that this suggests that that model is even stronger now? This is what I keep suggesting to you: to make specific predictions because when those predictions are shown to be right, then your model is interpreted to be more right. This seems so very, very simple to me. I notice that despite a few hundred lines of reply to myself and ydoaPs, there is still no specific model or predictions. You want to talk about interpretations? I interpret the lack of specific models and predictions to mean that you have a loosely combined set of ideas that haven't been worked out very thoroughly (if at all). That you desperately want people to accept that your ideas have merit, but don't want anyone to dissect the gossamer that surrounds the idea, because if you actually start to peer in, the inside is broken. Because if it wasn't really broken, it should be straightforward to make specific models and predictions. That still hasn't happened, despite this forum asking you for it for quite some time now.