Some myths concerning statistical hypothesis testing

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Wed Nov 20 12:48:09 EST 2002


It's my analysis, BTW, that the right-side stuff is, itself, a
reflection of cultural stuff. It's correlated to the 'pictographic'
or 'ideographic' symbol sets [Kanji, etc.] that're used in eastern
cultures.

Such graphical symbolization is relatively-closer to 'looking at
pictures' than is the stuff of western verbal symbolization.

So, the neural topology that's activated in the correlated
information-processing tasks is commensurately differentiated.

Anyway,

k. p. collins

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote in message ...
>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