Dear Philip, thanks again for demystifying the subject. I never held statisticians in much awe. When I worked at the Transport Research labs, we had a scientist who was down to earth (Neil Duncan). He gave us a rule of thumb, "If on any X-Y plot, you can make a relationship appear or disappear by placing your thumb over ten per cent of the points, the relationship is not real." I suppose that is where they got imaginary numbers from?
Thank you Dr. Stott. I find it very admirable that you are not “just” a Creationist populariser with a dusty university degree, but also a working scientist and engineer doing original research and teaching. It must be demanding to do all of it, I don’t know how you manage. Blessings
I teach computer programming. Did you know, we can "make up Math" in computer programming? By that, I mean we can create artificial physics models for games, even building animations that look "realistic", but are built on generalizations, assumptions, lies, and wish lists. Sure, there are basics of math that stay the same (add, multiply, etc.), but beyond that we are free to model any inane idea we have into a "simulation". So, as I see what you're saying - there is a marked difference between math we imagine might explain how things work versus scientific observations and predictions that can physically demonstrate how things work. I guess part of our challenge is that our imagination exceeds our scientific tools and techniques. So we should be careful that we aren't just working out the math for some Minecraft game where trees don't have to fall down when you chop the wood at the base.
Hi Daniel, glad to have you with us in the comments. Your comments really confirm what Sabine Hossenfelder has been trying to get people to take note of for quite a while. Physicists are making up maths from the top of their heads, doing some fancy mathematical fiddling and calling it science. Looks as if they can't tell the difference between computer games and reality - or maybe they don't want to!
Hi Joseph. As long as it was fine with you I am happy. But don't underestimate Brett. He is absolutely committed to the consensus view, but he is seriously clever nevertheless.
Hello Dr Stott! Thank you for sharing your experience with us! It was very revieling. You see, I have also been an engineer during my life. For a long period I had to prepare schedules for the preventive maintenance of aircraft and the failures are supposed to follow the Weibull curve; only they didn't! You had to meticulousely gather information (and force others to do so) in order to come to the real life distribution. I also think that many of the theories of the contemporary Physics are nothing more than just made-up stories. At best, I think that they make up models to explain their measurements and then they contend that the mathematical models are THE reality. I also faced the same problem as you have! Some people said to me that I don't understand statistics. Yes, I do not know as much as I wanted on statistics, but I sure know more than those who comment. One request though : Please fix the volume of the recording. It is very low (or I am getting too old !)
Hi Dimitrios. What a pleasure to hear from you. Yes, isn't it amazing that even for critical things like aircraft safety they guess a probability distribution in stead of going to the trouble (and what a lot of trouble that is!) to find out the truth. Thanks for letting me know about the volume, I will see if I can get it a bit higher.
@5:47 "cannot think clearly" Is Bret calling you old? Once upon a time age equaled wisdom. I'm 65 years old in a month and know much more now than what i knew at 40. Please carry on dr Stott, we love your videos.
This is a powerful critique of standard teaching on statistics. I have never once encountered this; I am always learning something from you. Now I am wondering how much of this has warped or skewed our understanding of biological systems and medicine. It is amazing how we are content with models because they are easy to understand but may have no correlation to reality. Thank you so much.
Hi SeaKinght. It's always good to hear from you. And I must say, it surprised me when I got the first pdf s, and it took quite a while for colleagues to realize what you just pointed out.
Very astute point! Since the worldwide event 4.5 years ago, I began scrutinizing biology and medicine with much more skepticism and cynicism and I have been somewhat stunned at how foundationally we have been tricked into believing things that just aren't true. I do not invest as much time into study as I could, but I've learned more than enough to realize the importance of studying God's words, above all God's words are historically accurate, scientifically accurate, prophetically accurate and literally true. Whatever we are told in this world, if it's in conflict with what God has said, I know who is lying and it's not the Lord!!! 😊
Hi again SeaKnight. If you look at the later comments from Dimitrios, you will see a very relevant situation. His work on aircraft safety assumed a Weibull distribution for component failures. But his meticulous record-keepig showed it was not true. That is even more scary than the areas you point to.
I read his comment with interest. The Weibull distribution is used in so many areas, one wonders how the formulas stack up against real data in those applications. I thought back about my days as a Marine Corps helicopter pilot and the material failures we saw resulting in deaths. Did Boeing use those distributions in determining inspection schedules for the drive train and rotor blades. In your example of soil, I can only imagine how many non linear dynamic elements are involved e.g. particle size, density, and composition; surrounding structures and perturbations, degree of liquefaction…
I like real world physics. I too decided on learning a trade to support myself first so I became a technician. 😄 Now I want to become a sort of chemist.
Hi JungleJargon - good choice to be a technician - Brian G Wallace made himself indispensable keeping the lab equipment working and got to do research with some of the professors. It seems to me, that in general, chemists stay much closer to reality than physicists.
Oooh I worked with soil testing last summer. Measuring the expansiveness, maximum compaction, water content, density, etc of soils is very fun but very time consuming (and expensive!) Still, it doesn't do to rely on mathematical assumptions, especially when something as important as buildings are involved.
Hi Ben, glad to hear you enjoyed the soil testing. I have discovered something very useful to know about soils. They speak in brail. If you want to know what they have to tell you you have to get your hands on them. It is not enough to look at test results, you need to do the tests.
@@creationsciencewithphilips7583 I've never thought of that before! I think it's spelled braille... Testing soil requires you to get your hands dirty! If we can't rely on mathematical probability curves for soil and mineral properties today, why should we trust an exponential decay function extrapolated on a probabilistic half-life for rocks that formed billions of years ago?
Thanks Ben. You are right Braille it is. The problem with radiometric dating is much worse than getting the curve right - the starting conditions are pure guesswork, the conditions since ejection are guesswork, and the correlations with other dating methods are pathetic.
I will be kind and not give my opinion of the person who attacked you Dr Stott. As a software engineer, I had to have knowledge of a lot of different fields. I also needed to know how to find the knowledge I did not possess. I then had to program that knowledge into the application using many different languages. Some languages are suited for specific applications. It is totally wrong to say someone has to be a professional to say something about a field. I worked with several physicists who found work as programmers since they learned to program for physics. Also many aeronautical and space engineers working as programmers. I was one of the few with an actual computer science degree. I know a lot about EE because we were lock stepped through our first two years of university. Anyway, God Bless and keep on making videos!
Hi Moonshiner, welcome, welcome welcome. Great to have you with us. And as you point out, it is really valuable to be able to seek out what you need to know and have the sense to be able to apply it. Blessings in abundance and keep standing with God's people!
Nothing beats a real world example experiment, use intuition, then experiment again to improve. I am sure its also faster to advance this way. Maths has been advanced for a long time yet aeroplanes changed slowly with time if math models figured things out they wouldnt have needed the sopwith camel or Wright Brothers wooden framed aeroplane they couldve gone straight to swept wing jet aircraft day one. Also the fun gets taken out of the process without real world experimentation. I think mathematicians are only useful for being chartered accountants or actuaries to calculate usury. And the sooner usury goes away the better. God and Angels can work things out with just maths but for mortals i often think we try and pretend to be much much cleverer than we are.
Thanks Glywnnis. I think there are a lot of people who would benefit from your advice about experiment being more valuable than mathematical speculation. And thanks for mentioning the Sopwith Camel. You took me back 70 years - I used to love making model aeroplanes and the Camel was my favourite - you brought tears of nostalgia to my eyes for a moment.
I'm still not happy with UA-cam hiding your channel, but I do understand why they do. Your content is a threat to their power. People make their decisions based upon the information that they have and they cannot control the will of man, but they can control the information man has access to, especially with these modern devices, programs and algorithmic advances.
Maybe these physicists should listen to Matthew 7:26-27 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Dear Philip, thanks again for demystifying the subject. I never held statisticians in much awe. When I worked at the Transport Research labs, we had a scientist who was down to earth (Neil Duncan). He gave us a rule of thumb, "If on any X-Y plot, you can make a relationship appear or disappear by placing your thumb over ten per cent of the points, the relationship is not real." I suppose that is where they got imaginary numbers from?
Hey Mike I love that! You have just made my day!
Thank you Dr. Stott. I find it very admirable that you are not “just” a Creationist populariser with a dusty university degree, but also a working scientist and engineer doing original research and teaching. It must be demanding to do all of it, I don’t know how you manage. Blessings
Hi Tychonian, it's always good to hear from you. And many blessings to you!
I teach computer programming. Did you know, we can "make up Math" in computer programming? By that, I mean we can create artificial physics models for games, even building animations that look "realistic", but are built on generalizations, assumptions, lies, and wish lists. Sure, there are basics of math that stay the same (add, multiply, etc.), but beyond that we are free to model any inane idea we have into a "simulation".
So, as I see what you're saying - there is a marked difference between math we imagine might explain how things work versus scientific observations and predictions that can physically demonstrate how things work. I guess part of our challenge is that our imagination exceeds our scientific tools and techniques. So we should be careful that we aren't just working out the math for some Minecraft game where trees don't have to fall down when you chop the wood at the base.
Hi Daniel, glad to have you with us in the comments. Your comments really confirm what Sabine Hossenfelder has been trying to get people to take note of for quite a while. Physicists are making up maths from the top of their heads, doing some fancy mathematical fiddling and calling it science. Looks as if they can't tell the difference between computer games and reality - or maybe they don't want to!
Another Masterpiece from brother Dr. Stott..
Thanks Hector. Have a blessed day!
@creationsciencewithphilips7583 amen....🙏🙌😇
Cool! Probably over Brett's head.
Hi Joseph. As long as it was fine with you I am happy. But don't underestimate Brett. He is absolutely committed to the consensus view, but he is seriously clever nevertheless.
Hello Dr Stott! Thank you for sharing your experience with us! It was very revieling. You see, I have also been an engineer during my life. For a long period I had to prepare schedules for the preventive maintenance of aircraft and the failures are supposed to follow the Weibull curve; only they didn't! You had to meticulousely gather information (and force others to do so) in order to come to the real life distribution.
I also think that many of the theories of the contemporary Physics are nothing more than just made-up stories. At best, I think that they make up models to explain their measurements and then they contend that the mathematical models are THE reality. I also faced the same problem as you have! Some people said to me that I don't understand statistics. Yes, I do not know as much as I wanted on statistics, but I sure know more than those who comment.
One request though : Please fix the volume of the recording. It is very low (or I am getting too old !)
Hi Dimitrios. What a pleasure to hear from you. Yes, isn't it amazing that even for critical things like aircraft safety they guess a probability distribution in stead of going to the trouble (and what a lot of trouble that is!) to find out the truth. Thanks for letting me know about the volume, I will see if I can get it a bit higher.
@5:47 "cannot think clearly"
Is Bret calling you old? Once upon a time age equaled wisdom. I'm 65 years old in a month and know much more now than what i knew at 40. Please carry on dr Stott, we love your videos.
Thanks technicianbis. I love your comments!
@creationsciencewithphilips7583
Thankyou for your efforts dr Stott. 👍🙏🙏🙏
Bravo!
Thanks Daniel. We appreciate having you with us.
Sir, you have the honor of kings, whether any of those “real scientists” will admit it or not.
Hi G-Man, what a joy to hear from you again. Blessings in abundance!
God bless you Philip Stott. May God help you live long and healthy like Methuselah. You are a blessing for us all. 😇
Thank you. I am at a loss for words. Thank you.
@@creationsciencewithphilips7583 Your welcome. May you always be blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is a powerful critique of standard teaching on statistics. I have never once encountered this; I am always learning something from you. Now I am wondering how much of this has warped or skewed our understanding of biological systems and medicine. It is amazing how we are content with models because they are easy to understand but may have no correlation to reality.
Thank you so much.
Hi SeaKinght. It's always good to hear from you. And I must say, it surprised me when I got the first pdf s, and it took quite a while for colleagues to realize what you just pointed out.
Very astute point! Since the worldwide event 4.5 years ago, I began scrutinizing biology and medicine with much more skepticism and cynicism and I have been somewhat stunned at how foundationally we have been tricked into believing things that just aren't true. I do not invest as much time into study as I could, but I've learned more than enough to realize the importance of studying God's words, above all
God's words are historically accurate, scientifically accurate, prophetically accurate and literally true. Whatever we are told in this world, if it's in conflict with what God has said, I know who is lying and it's not the Lord!!! 😊
Hi again SeaKnight. If you look at the later comments from Dimitrios, you will see a very relevant situation. His work on aircraft safety assumed a Weibull distribution for component failures. But his meticulous record-keepig showed it was not true. That is even more scary than the areas you point to.
I read his comment with interest. The Weibull distribution is used in so many areas, one wonders how the formulas stack up against real data in those applications. I thought back about my days as a Marine Corps helicopter pilot and the material failures we saw resulting in deaths. Did Boeing use those distributions in determining inspection schedules for the drive train and rotor blades. In your example of soil, I can only imagine how many non linear dynamic elements are involved e.g. particle size, density, and composition; surrounding structures and perturbations, degree of liquefaction…
I like real world physics. I too decided on learning a trade to support myself first so I became a technician. 😄 Now I want to become a sort of chemist.
Hi JungleJargon - good choice to be a technician - Brian G Wallace made himself indispensable keeping the lab equipment working and got to do research with some of the professors. It seems to me, that in general, chemists stay much closer to reality than physicists.
@ Don’t tell anyone but I am working on hydrogen for use in fuel cells.
Sounds great!
Oooh I worked with soil testing last summer. Measuring the expansiveness, maximum compaction, water content, density, etc of soils is very fun but very time consuming (and expensive!) Still, it doesn't do to rely on mathematical assumptions, especially when something as important as buildings are involved.
Hi Ben, glad to hear you enjoyed the soil testing. I have discovered something very useful to know about soils. They speak in brail. If you want to know what they have to tell you you have to get your hands on them. It is not enough to look at test results, you need to do the tests.
@@creationsciencewithphilips7583 I've never thought of that before! I think it's spelled braille... Testing soil requires you to get your hands dirty! If we can't rely on mathematical probability curves for soil and mineral properties today, why should we trust an exponential decay function extrapolated on a probabilistic half-life for rocks that formed billions of years ago?
Thanks Ben. You are right Braille it is. The problem with radiometric dating is much worse than getting the curve right - the starting conditions are pure guesswork, the conditions since ejection are guesswork, and the correlations with other dating methods are pathetic.
@ In what way are they pathetic?
I will be kind and not give my opinion of the person who attacked you Dr Stott.
As a software engineer, I had to have knowledge of a lot of different fields. I also needed to know how to find the knowledge I did not possess. I then had to program that knowledge into the application using many different languages. Some languages are suited for specific applications. It is totally wrong to say someone has to be a professional to say something about a field.
I worked with several physicists who found work as programmers since they learned to program for physics. Also many aeronautical and space engineers working as programmers. I was one of the few with an actual computer science degree. I know a lot about EE because we were lock stepped through our first two years of university.
Anyway, God Bless and keep on making videos!
Hi Moonshiner, welcome, welcome welcome. Great to have you with us. And as you point out, it is really valuable to be able to seek out what you need to know and have the sense to be able to apply it. Blessings in abundance and keep standing with God's people!
Nothing beats a real world example experiment, use intuition, then experiment again to improve. I am sure its also faster to advance this way. Maths has been advanced for a long time yet aeroplanes changed slowly with time if math models figured things out they wouldnt have needed the sopwith camel or Wright Brothers wooden framed aeroplane they couldve gone straight to swept wing jet aircraft day one. Also the fun gets taken out of the process without real world experimentation. I think mathematicians are only useful for being chartered accountants or actuaries to calculate usury. And the sooner usury goes away the better. God and Angels can work things out with just maths but for mortals i often think we try and pretend to be much much cleverer than we are.
Thanks Glywnnis. I think there are a lot of people who would benefit from your advice about experiment being more valuable than mathematical speculation. And thanks for mentioning the Sopwith Camel. You took me back 70 years - I used to love making model aeroplanes and the Camel was my favourite - you brought tears of nostalgia to my eyes for a moment.
I'm still not happy with UA-cam hiding your channel, but I do understand why they do. Your content is a threat to their power. People make their decisions based upon the information that they have and they cannot control the will of man, but they can control the information man has access to, especially with these modern devices, programs and algorithmic advances.
Hi Scott. I have noticed that comments sometimes disappear, but I had not known they hide the channel. Can you tell me more please.
Maybe these physicists should listen to Matthew 7:26-27
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Hi Marco, wise advice - and not just for physicists - for all of us.