Some myths concerning statistical hypothesis testing

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 19 21:03:42 EST 2002


Additional comments added below.

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message ...
>Please Forgive me, Robert, for being Enabled by the Beauty inherent
>in your prior post.
>
>To ALL: Although I'll take reference in Robert's post, it's with
>Sorrow that I procede because I wish not to impart any 'share' of
the
>'retribution' that ensues my discussing 'Difficult' stuff, I
>understand from prior experience that there will be some of such,
>even if it's unjust. Kindly, direct all such stuff solely to me, OK?
>
>Robert Dodier wrote in message
><6714766d.0211171827.612e3ad6 at posting.google.com>...
>>[...]
>>
>>Just to clarify the grounds of the debate, the questions of
interest
>>are not mathematical in nature -- so far as I know all parties
agree
>>on the theorems of probability, measure theory, etc. and nobody
>claims
>>that their opponents have a false derivation or some error like
>that.
>>
>>The debate is best characterized as a scientific in nature --
>>specifically, there is disagreement as to what the A, B, C, and
>>X, Y, Z in the equations can stand for. It is something like a
>>physicist exhibiting an equation for balance of phlogiston --
>>even if the equation itself is OK, some people will object to
>>interpreting the quantity P as a massless fluid that transfers
>energy.
>
>Your whole discussion is so Cogent, Robert. I wish to discuss
certain
>consequences that derive in things being as you've discussed them,
>with specific respect to the "War of the Worldviews" stuff that's
>inherent.
>
>>Specifically, in the case of statistics, one group claims that it
is
>>meaningful to assess probability for any proposition, be it
>>concerning
>>random variables or otherwise. Another influential group claims
that
>>is incorrect, and some mode of reasoning other than probability is
>>required for any proposition not concerning random variables. This
>>disagreement as to the scope of probability has lead to vastly
>>different methodologies, and never the twain shall meet, AFAICT.
>
>The whole point of NDT is with respect to such 'warring worldviews'
>stuff, and NDT's position with respect to it is that the
>'worldviews', themselves, come to exist as by-products of TD
>E/I-minimization with respect to individually-unique experience. In
>organically-intact nervous systems, the dynamics of TD
>E/I-minimization are relatively the Same-Stuff from individual to
>individual. It's easy to see that, if that, to the degree that that
>was  not the case, adaptability would be less than optimal. Less
than
>optimal adaptability correlates directly to ability to survive. So,
>what varies from individual to individual must derive in variation
>amongst experiential environments.
>
>And there are the consequences of the stuff of the 'warring
>worldviews' that Robert discussed. The 'divergence' inherent derives
>in differential experience, not in anything that can be termed
>"Science".

=Of course= there is individual-to-individual biological variance,
right down to the DNA, but, within the 'normal' range of Human
interactive dynamics, such biological variation is 'moot' because, if
a biological variation results in reduced adaptability, that version
of the biology is at a deficit when environmental conditions become
modified beyond the range of its adaptability.

With respect to such, the contemporaneous existence of
widely-dispersed populations demonstrates that adaptive-survival
capacities are quite uniform across populations [I'm reminded of a TV
News show that dealt with Young Immigrants to Minnesota(?) from
Uganda(?) - the main 'difficulties' were cultrual, not with respect
to the pre- and post-Immigration climate differential].

So, this view holds that, while there's individual-to-individual
biological variation, the important stuff is
adaptability-to-environment - which is, once again, 'just' the one
overall energy-flow actualized within various environments - and what
the individual-to-individual biological variation constitutes is
'just' more 'climbing'-up the downhill energy gradient inherent in
the overall energy-flow - "going up the down staircase", the single
goal being always enhanced adaptability - enhanced survival.

My earlier discussions that take this stuff down to the molecular
'level', demonstrating that it is the one overall energy-flow that
directs evolutionary progress applies here.

And, no, I do not miss the 'irony' of the fact that, in the midst of
a discussion of 'adaptability', I'm coming close to my own failure to
survive.

You know?

NDT is all about acting consciously to enhance adaptability.

I could've taken the understanding and 'used' it on my own behalf,
but I saw that the thing to do with it was to give it to the
Children - in the service of all.

I understand the consequences of my Choice - it's stuff augments TD
E/I within others' nervous systems - given that augmented TD E/I,
folks'll 'move away from' me.

It was just clear to me that the thing to do was 'stand-in-the-face'
of such - to lift folks up out of the 'blindly'-automated 'tyranny'
that's inherent.

It's been 'Hard', but I've no 'regrets' - the Children are worth it -
so is the future of Humanity that flows out of NDT's understanding.

Anyway,

k. p. collins

>A case in point is the 'unattractiveness', to contemporaneous
>Physicists, of stuff like the "massless" "Phlogiston" of Reobert's
>example.
>
>Contemporaneous Physics condemns such to 'bad-idea Hell', and, in
the
>case of 'phlogiston', I agree.
>
>The problem is, however, that with each such 'condemnation', the
>general experience of 'condemning' this or that gains behavioral
>inertia, and when such happens, the behavioral inertia has a
tendency
>to exert itself in ways that are over-generalized.
>
>For instance, in the years preceding1900, Physics was confronted
with
>a break-down in the 'classical' methods upon which it had relied.
>Specifically, in the behavior of the 'black-body' radiation
spectrum,
>the problem showed itself as a drastic divergence of 'classical'
>predictions, in the form of the Rayleigh-Jeans equation, and
>experimental observation. It was observed that, at high frequencies,
>instead of heading toward infinity, as R-J predicted, the black-body
>power headed back toward zero [which came to be known as the
>"ultraviolet catastrophe" because of the phenomenon's correlation
>with roughly ultraviolet [short] wavelengths [high-frequencies].
>
>It was a stunning 'failure' of then contemporaneous methods, and had
>pretty-much all of Physics 'scratching it's head'.
>
>To make a long, and very-interesting, story short, Max Planck
>developed a way of restoring calculation's ability to predict
results
>that coincided with experiment. In doing so, he incorporated the
>concept of energy existing only in the form of 'discrete quanta'.
>
>As the success of Planck's quantized approach augmented, folks in
>Physics were increasingly won over by it - eventually, to the point
>where any discussions of approaches to resolutions of the same
>physical dynamics were 'out-lawed', not on any basis in Science, but
>because of the behavioral inertia that'd accrued with respect to the
>'quantized' approach to calculation and prediction with respect to
>physical phenomena.
>
>How do I know this?
>
>I went back and reconsidered all of the problem-data, and verified
>that there is at least one way to resolve all the issues inherent
>without invoking 'quanta'. I also found that, in doing so, problems
>that have just been left 'dangling' within contemporaneous 'physics'
>just fall together - for instance, the problem of the physical
>wellspring of "inertia", and the problem of so-called "gravitational
>attraction" just 'disappear [the problems, that is, not their
>correlates in physical reality].
>
>And, when one considers such dangling-problems, while considering
the
>data involved in the original divergence of 'classical' and
'quantal'
>approaches [the 'black-body' "ultraviolet catastrophe"], one can
>flat-out see that the 'quantal' approach is erroneous because it is
>what imposes the 'difficulties' upon Physics which result in
problems
>like the wellspring of "inertia" and the inability to unify
"gravity"
>being left 'dangling.
>
>Specifically, if one traces the shift of the BB power spectrum's
>maximum toward shorter wavelengths, one sees, directly, that there
>cannot be anything 'quantal' in-there - because the shifting takes
>the form of a  continuous 'compacting'. If there were 'quanta'
>involved, such simply could not occur because, no matter how small
>one makes the 'quanta', the BB power spectrun can be 'compressed'
>smaller than that [Zeno].
>
>What's actually going on is as it's discussed in Tapered Harmony.
>There is a continuous exchange of energy between material and
>non-material 'states', and the dynamics of this continuous exchange
>of energy just reflect the local power inherent.
>
>Doing it this continuous-energy-flow way results in the wellspring
of
>physical "inertia" dropping right out - it's 'just' the correlate of
>the fact that, before any observable change in material dynamics can
>occur, there must be sufficient correlated energy exchange.
>
>And doing it this way allows one to 'weigh' the supposedly
'massless'
>non-material energy - the stuff that's there, even though it's not
>materially there.
>
>Such 'weighing' can be read, as above, directly from the
'black-body'
>power spectrum.
>
>What's been referred to as "gravity" [and the actions that correlate
>to it in physical reality] fall[s]-out in a rather analogous way.
>
>But, despite all this [and much more], this non-'quantal' approach
>[which I expect Einstein would've selcomed] is censored - I'm not
>even allowed to discuss it.
>
>Which brings the discussion to the root of 'warring-world-views'
>stuff in differential experience.
>
>It's this stuff, which falls within the province of Neuroscience,
>that needs to be addressed, because absent the correlated
>understanding, folks're 'blind' to the physical reality that they
>propose to 'discuss'.
>
>In Physics, the result is relatively endurable, but with respect to
>the Same-Stuff as it impacts =all= Human interactive dynamics, it
>constitutes a problem left-dangling that threatens the very Survival
>of Humanity.
>
>Of course, the problem is resolved in NDT.
>
>Please Forgive me, I persist in asking folks in Neuroscience to take
>up this problem resolution.
>
>Anyway, Robert, I'm Grateful for the opportunity your Cogent
>discussion presented, and ask that all the 'heat' be sent in my
>direction, not yours.
>
>Cheers, K. P. Collins
>
>>Statistics courses for non-majors are almost entirely taught by
>>the "probability for random variables only" party; this is a
>>historical and sociological phenomenon. OTOH, I am aware that the
>>other persuasion is popular in many computer science departments,
>>specifically as it makes automated reasoning much easier to
>formulate.
>>
>>For what it's worth,
>>Robert Dodier
>>--
>>``He wins most who toys with the dies.'' -- David O'Bedlam
>
>P.S. I =Love= your 'signature'. kpc
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list