Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> O'Malley's calculation determines the probability of getting N hits in > N tries. It's just wrong. > ***No, no no. How many times do we need to go through this for a > skeptopath to acknowledge it? The calculation assumes N tries and N > hits, and then proceeds to calculate the probability of those N hits > were ALL by some error or errors. > You did say that! I am witness. You said: ". . . it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were misreads." Let me answer your question: "How many times do we need to go through this . . . ?" No number of times will suffice. People such as Cude or Robert Park will NEVER acknowledge any point you make, no matter how self evident, no matter how trivial. They will not give an inch. I have been dealing with these people for 20 years and if I have learned anything, I have learned that. It is as if they follow Churchill's advice from 1941, but they never read the last part of the sentence: "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense." They miss the "good sense" part. I cannot read minds so I cannot judge whether they truly believe what they say or whether they view this as a semantic ping-pong game of no importance. I used to lean toward the latter but in recent years I tend to think they they believe what they say. I find it mind-boggling that someone like Steve Jones sincerely thinks that recombination can explain the excess heat in McKubre's closed cell, but I distinctly remember Jones telling me that. We were sitting in a cafe snacking during an ICCF conference. I was so flabbergasted that for once could not think of anything to say in response. (If any reader does not follow what I mean, suffice it to say this is as outlandish as a mechanic claiming that a car might run without gasoline.) - Jed
