Easily answered from a particular point of view of many of an eastern way of thinking. A movie is a real movie, but it is not real like the projector is real, or the one who filmed the movie, or the one showing the movie, etc. Difference between what is on the screen, and what it took to get it on the screen...that which is just a projection is nothing more than a reflected image...just as what appears on the human mind is just a projected thought. When the electricity goes off, the movie stops, but the projector itself, the screen and the movie director remain unchanged.... It is a real projection of what is on the movie reel, but it is just a projection, not the real thing...
Q:What is the probability of him winning another Wimbledon? A: Despite the the laws of probability, and despite the fact that Bjorn won 5 Wimbledons in the past -- the probability of his winning another is effectively zero. Do you see how this relates to the creation of our universe and its corresponding cosmological constant? We cannot recreate the universe and we can't replay Bjorn Borg at Wimbledon. Probability is meaningless to any understanding of what is already a historical fact, unless you can repeat the same probability experiment in the future.
This really betrays your ignorance of statistics. Statistical methods can be used to summarize or describe a collection of data; this is called descriptive statistics. In addition, patterns in the data may be modeled in a way that accounts for randomness and uncertainty in the observations, to draw inferences about the process or population being studied; this is called inferential statistics. Do you know how to draw inferences?
First of all, you have no reason to "fight a battle with me," because I'm not looking for a fight. I'm simply trying to understand the perspective of the people here. You are right, I didn't read all the 270 + pages of posts...because I don't have the time to. As far as exposing my ignorance is concerned...I readily admitted that I am not an expert on anything, so that means that you too did not read all the posts. Therefore, I'm not pretending to have some knowledge of science. I already stated that science and math are not my strong points, and that I'm here to learn. Peace.
Keep going this is getting entertaining. so the proper inference is, winning 5 battles is as random as coin flips landing as heads-- as long as I use the proper statistical methods.
Ok...you must know that I can't agree on your last statement, but what I'm wondering is, if the scientific method actively seeks to disprove its own theories in order to get at the truth, then why claim that these theories they seek to disprove are actually "factual," as if by being "factual" they are indeed the truth? How can one state by claiming factuality, that something "is," if they are steadily trying to disprove what they claim "is" for the sake of getting at the truth? It makes no sense. No offense. Peace.
No. Your inability to understand a point is truly amazing. Do you know what is a "null hypothesis?" How does one infer that a certain hypothesis is valid? (hint: look at how drug companies conduct clinical trials).
If you know that you don't understand science, then don't make false statements about science that you don't understand. You don't overstep your bounds, and I won't object to your posts.