Analytics wrote: It did get kind of interesting towards the end when a BYU statistics professor joined the thread to tell me that my analysis was awful and that I was simply lucky that so far, I've been right.
So while your methodology was flawed your results were good? On the other hand we are asked to look past Joseph Smith inability to translate Egyptian to what he wrote.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Analytics wrote: It did get kind of interesting towards the end when a BYU statistics professor joined the thread to tell me that my analysis was awful and that I was simply lucky that so far, I've been right.
So while your methodology was flawed your results were good? On the other hand we are asked to look past Joseph Smith inability to translate Egyptian to what he wrote.
Lol. You can get lucky with bad methodology and still get good results, so the fact that my numbers look good so far isn't a vindication.
Based upon Schaalje's comments, I would have definitely explained a few things a little differently and added a caveat or two. But the fundamental ideas of that paper are sound.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Doctor Scratch wrote: I can't help but wonder if one of the MI apologists was watching the thread and sent an email to Schaalje in the hopes that he would "go to war for the cause."
No, that's never happened!
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond