Defense of Arguments: Bayesian Inference 1

[DarkMonkArt]

Filter out what you consider correct?

At lest half the time there correct ?

I will take the other half as being correct.

Sometimes they are not correct but you still fallow your Hypothesis as being correct.

The math you used shows exclusions of half the time being one way of the other?

SO that means Evolution 100 %?

Us just being here on earth with no (proven) contradiction 0%.

Hay What happen to the 50% of the time thing?

Begin your study with no opinion.

LIKE a Scientist should.

[truthofevolution]

what are you talking about? I dont understand what you are saying and you clearly dont understand what I said in the video.

[thevoicejam]

Thanks for your excellent argument. It seems the theory has bias without input from the opposing hypothesis. You stated that I.D has no testable hypothesis, wouldnt this then make it inappropriate for this stat inference? This would mean your argument losses its integrity. On the other hand if the opposing H can be tested you better input these as well.

[truthofevolution]

Hi what you say is technically correct that you cannot compare something with no testable hypothesis, however, while I say this for the layman, in utilizing the equation, we have to say that creationism accepts all possibilities with equal probability. This is the same as saying that it makes no hypothesis, but also allows for the utilization of this equation.

Thus there is input from the other side, which is all possibilities with equal probability. With evolution this is not the case.

[phicomingatya]

Also your coin experiment is a very bad and wrong example of how baysian theory works. A priori chances are multiplied by the likelihood of observed data. Even if only once, something else than head comes up, the chance of the theory 'head always comes up' will be multiplied by the likelyhood of zero, making he odds of the theory being true also zero. The theory will lose against any theory with positive likelihood.But please show me your magic equations turning zero chance into positive chance

[truthofevolution]

"The theory will lose against any theory with positive likelihood."

Thats my whole point, there was no other theory to compare it too, thus we have to accept it. Until there is a to compete with it, we must accept it even though it is only partially correct.

I was not illustrating bayesian inference per se since that requires two theories, just that weaker theories can be superseded by a better theory.

Thats my whole point.

[truthofevolution]

let me be a bit more clear: my whole point is the idea of comparison, and how something incomplete must be accepted if its better than the alternative: by saying "heads always comes up" Im implicitly setting up an alternative better than the one I have. Thats not my point.

I SHOULD have said that my theory says heads comes up without mentioning tails. Thus having the alternative of tails does not disprove it. This theory SUPERSEDES a theory which does not mention either heads or tails.

[phicomingatya]

Without mentioning tails, it's a totally different theory, that says head comes up (sometimes? not always?).

So this theory would be a hundred percent true no matter what the alternative. HUGE difference, still useless.

Again, with only one theory, baysian interference is useless.

Your science is useless as long as you do not make predictions for the theory that all of todays life is not all a result of evolviing.

You totally misrepresenting how baysian interference works.

[phicomingatya]

Harsha, who taught you about baysian interference?

Don't you know that baysian theorem is useless with only one theory???

Second, with every observation/data, all theories/models are evaluated, depending on how likely the observation/data is given each theory.

Of course you already know all of this or you should.

Now I wonder if you can show me your equations and then I'll be happy to show you equations proofing evolution to be wrong, irrefuably!!!

[truthofevolution]

I already know about bayesian inference because I used it in my psych and genetics classes. Im referring to another video in this video. I compare evolution to creationism/intelligent design. Please watch my other video "proving evolution using predictions"

That video explains more clearly.

[mellielli]

I love your coin-tossing example. I think it illustrates the problem with Creationism very well. You can make God a part of your theory but if your theory still doesn't explain anything more than the existing theories, I kind of think God just makes everything more complicated. Good old Ockham's razor has it's advantages.

[offthewallur]

I must admit, however, that on the discussion of ERVs and genetics, you had the upper hand, as that is not my field of expertise. Nonetheless, I still believe we might be drawing the wrong conclusions from the premise at hand, and in doing so, we are committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In light of this, I can determine that with the lack of physical evidence I need, and with the contentious matter of endogenous retrovirus, I stand skeptical.

[truthofevolution]

If genetics and ERVs were your field of expertise, you would accept evolution. You see even behe (a biochemist) accepts that humans and apes shared a common ancestor.

"I still believe we might be drawing the wrong conclusions from the premise at hand"

How? You have never addressed my LTR argument. You are only talking in vague generalities here without specifically telling me what is wrong with my conclusions.

"with the lack of physical evidence I need"

Ahh! mutations on LTRS!

[truthofevolution]

"the contentious matter of endogenous retrovirus, I stand skeptical."

You have every right to remain skeptical, but please don't confuse this for a scientific position.

It is only contentious because you do not understand the subject. Anyone who understands the behavior of reverse transcriptase, DNA polymerase, and the concept of nested hierarchy cannot deny my argument.

If you want I can explain it to you.

[truthofevolution]

Im not trying to offend you, Im only trying to show you how science is done.

Please tell me if you do not understand the LTR argument, so I can sketch it out for you.

Take care.

[offthewallur]

Let me try to clarify my position, and you can tell me if it makes sense. The supposed accuracies or predictions that are used to determine evolution's validity are the very supposed accuracies or predictions that we are arguing. What would happen if these points we were arguing were found to be false or inaccurate?

[truthofevolution]

"Let me try to clarify my position, and you can tell me if it makes sense."

Your position definitely makes sense. And thats the point: for evolution to be wrong, I need to put forward examples of predictions and you need to discredit them. ALL of them. Even if evolution has ONE correct prediction, it is still more accurate than creationism which has zero. Furthermore even if you discredit ALL the predictions, it is still as equally likely as creationism which has zero predictions.

[truthofevolution]

I put forward a prediction "Mutations on LTR sequences have a nested hierarchical sequence". You have completely ignored this argument, so Im waiting for you to address it. Also I have dozens of predictions in many of my other videos.

[offthewallur]

I think I might have been the "he" in the example. ;).

[truthofevolution]

one of the "he"s is you.

[AlmightScoop]

I prefer this format, because I watch at work and can listen, but not view, videos.

[busymartian]

The coin flip example was great. I'm going to use it.

[truthofevolution]

thanks- another way of stating my explanation for randomess- is "the act of god interfering with nonrandomness"

Every creationist assumes that nature is random and God is nonrandom. I can just as easily declare the opposite, this is why explanations dont mean anything.

[busymartian]

More people that study science should be doing this, explaining what they know well. It brings the science community closer to the general public. No mystery. More young people need to get interested in studying science. Going to university with new eyes, you never know what kinds of modern problems might be solved.

Keep up the good work!

[EvoTriumphsOverGod]

I also agree on keeping this format. You seem to literate your ideas better and explain your logic in a more understandable way. Impressed by all your videos as well, hopefully you will continue to make more and change some people's minds.

[SexyScientist6]

Great video. Quite informative. I do prefer it this way compared to the white letters on a blue screen.

[truthofevolution]

thanks, and thanks for your input.

[coasterpro]

Awesome video! Great points. You taught me something about Bayesian inference. You're a student of biology?

Subscribed and Fav'ed.

[truthofevolution]

thanks! youre the best!

[truthofevolution]

I have a BA in neuroscience btw.

[quiptic]

Category: Comedy?

[truthofevolution]

haha, the program i used did it automatically, ill update the description box soon and put up the appropriate papers... rite now im a bit busy.