Voices of dissent: statistical hypothesis testing

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sat Nov 9 07:30:07 EST 2002


Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>Case in-point: The JPEG image I've attached to this post Verifies
>that 'quantum mechanics' is not a unique solution in 'nuclear
>physics'. 'qm' is just coersed-consensus stuff.
>
>This realization matters, but I've not even been able to discuss the
>concepts in 'physics' NGs. My posts have been Censored completely,
>not on the basis of anything that's in-Science, but as a consequence
>of their 'divergence from groupwise coersed-consnesus.
>
>That ain't Science, and any applications of Statistics with respect
>to such are meaningless.

That's NQI. Statistics can be applied still in Meaningful ways, but
only if the 'boundaries' of the groupwise coersed-consensus are
'transcended'.

Doing such is what NDT is all about.

In my prior discussion in this thread, I was discussing the
Meaninglessness that coersed-consensus inflicts upon Science -
rendering it the merely-familiar stuff of prejudice.

And then 'they' exert such PTOFA across the world's populations,
dragging everyone along into the the coersed-consensus within which
Statistics cannot even be done.

Such happens in a cynical way that deems 'normal' folks 'unfit', and
needing to be dictated-to, because their experience does not include
Education in Physics.

The Same-Stuff is rampant within all Human interactive dynamics.

NDT addresses the Tragedy, inherent, by imparting understanding which
applies within all possible Human interactive dynamics.

k. p. collins

>The image: It maps the natural abundances of all the known isotopes
>in a novel way, disclosing that there exists a uniform =overall=
>energydynamic with respect to which the natural abundances occur in
a
>'valley'. Data were extracted from the TOI Isotopes database which,
>when I did the analysis, was available at:
>
>http://isotopes.lbl.gov.iaotopes/vuensdf.html
>
>k. p. collins.
>
>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>Basically, I agree with the gist of the position Glen 'outlined'
>>below, but I come at the problem from a different perspective.
>>
>>In the work I've done, I've explored deeply into how this or that
>>'scientific' bandwagon's  being jumped-on is the primary thing that
>>determines the course that 'science' will take - has nothing to do
>>with Science, and everything to do with groupwise
coersed-consensus.
>>
>>Apply Statistics to such, and the =only= thing that can happen is
>>that the 'statistics' will positively or negatively reflect =only=
>>with respect to that which is bounded within groupwise
>>coersed-consensus, which amounts to just more, meaningless,
>groupwise coersed-consensus, not Science.
>>
>>That it's so is really-Big-Time-Sorrowful stuff, 'cause there are
>>problems whose Resolutions actually matter.
>>
>>k. p. collins
>>[...]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list