Some myths concerning statistical hypothesis testing

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 19 21:22:24 EST 2002


Another example is the observations that folks in the orient do Maths
in a way that activates the right hemisphere to a greater extent than
'typically' happens in 'western'-acultured nervous systems.

Yet Asian-Americans are among the elite at 'western' universities.

I'll wager that, if Asian-American Students volunteer to analogous
scan-stuff, their neural dynamics will show a 'migration' toward the
cultural 'norm', and this 'effect' will show correlation with respect
to the number of generations-removed from the former
biological-culture - augmenting with succeeding post-Immigration
generations. [There's rich 'depth' to the understanding that'll be
unmasked in this ovservational approach.]

Get it?

Generalized adaptability.

The generalized adaptability is actualized in
experiential-environmentally-driven activation-dependent
neural-topology development.

What's the 'take-home' lesson?

All this 'us vs. them' stuff is garbage in which Humanity has
willingly immersed itself - allowing itself to be Ravaged by the
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization that's been left in-there,
uncomprehended.

Get it?

Humanity is not 'required' to suffer the 'Dictates inherent.

We are mush-more than the 'blindly'-automated constraint-stuff
involved.

Get it?

k. p. collins

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message
<24CC9.15336$vM1.1132815 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>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