Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by wollery

I notice, Jabba, that you haven't responded in any way shape or form to this post of mine which addresses the fundamental problem with your card analogy.

Why is that?

Wollery,

- I think that the following was your basic objection in that post:

Your mistake is in thinking that, because the probability that you would be born given that all of the people you are descended from had a low probability of being born, you are somehow special. You aren't. The probability that Muriel or James would be born was exactly the same as the probability that you would be born. You're the three of clubs, Muriel would have been the nine of spades and James would have been the Jack of hearts. You're not special, you just happened to be the next card in the randomly shuffled deck.


- I think that my answer to your objection is contained in the first 9 "paragraphs" of http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php. It goes like this:

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.
You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.
'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.
If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?
You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.
Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.
But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…
So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?
It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…


- Doesn't that answer your objection?

--- Jabba

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

<snap>

- Doesn't that answer your objection?

--- Jabba

No.

Do you have anything to discuss that relates to your fictitious post titles, Mr Earp?


Remotely?



Ever?

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Wollery,

- I think that the following was your basic objection in that post:

Your mistake is in thinking that, because the probability that you would be born given that all of the people you are descended from had a low probability of being born, you are somehow special. You aren't. The probability that Muriel or James would be born was exactly the same as the probability that you would be born. You're the three of clubs, Muriel would have been the nine of spades and James would have been the Jack of hearts. You're not special, you just happened to be the next card in the randomly shuffled deck.


- I think that my answer to your objection is contained in the first 9 "paragraphs" of http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php. It goes like this:

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.
You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.
'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.
If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?
You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.
Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.
But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…
So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?
It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…


- Doesn't that answer your objection?

--- Jabba

Not even close.

Why are you suspicious of the second deck of cards?

My point is that there's no reason to think that the second deck is in any way special, or shuffled in any particular order. In fact, even if you get four aces it could still be down to random chance.

Why is random chance not a perfectly good explanation for either deck?

In particular, why isn't random chance a perfectly good explanation for the second deck?

What's special about the second deck?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Humots

In your link, you state (bolding mine):

This is wrong. The event is not "drawing from the Ace deck or the normal deck". It is drawing an ace, and there are two possible ways to do this: "from the Ace deck or from the normal deck".

The question is, what is the probability that an ace, once drawn, came from the Ace deck?

One composite probability value is about four times the other, but that does not mean the probability of drawing from the ace deck once an ace has been drawn is as you state.

Determining this probability is a bit more complicated than simply comparing one composite probability against the other.

I'm not a math teacher (nor do I play one on TV) so I can't come up with my own argument in a reasonable time.

So please take a look at the Wiki entry on Bayes' Theorem. I can't give a direct URL (too few posts), but you can copy and paste

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_theorem

into your browser.

See the Introductory Example for a scenario similar to yours.

Humots,
- I gotta say, this is why I "love" probability -- it provides such great mental challenges. But then, I gotta admit that sometimes I'm not up to the particular challenge...
- Anyway, take a look at http://messiahornot.com/Act2Scene2.php.
- I do use Bayesian statistics in my argument for immortality, but I'm still hoping -- and, to a large extent, thinking -- that the Bayes Theorem doesn't really apply to my cards example. The cards example doesn't have any "background knowledge" to worry about.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by wollery

Not even close.

Why are you suspicious of the second deck of cards?

My point is that there's no reason to think that the second deck is in any way special, or shuffled in any particular order. In fact, even if you get four aces it could still be down to random chance.

Why is random chance not a perfectly good explanation for either deck?

In particular, why isn't random chance a perfectly good explanation for the second deck?

What's special about the second deck?

Wollery,
- Ask Humots if he agrees with you.
--- Jabba

[pakeha]

I think it's charming how Jabba manages to combine an attempt to up the traffic to his website with a discussion about his understanding of probability.

[Pixel42]

The probability of drawing four aces in a row out of an ordinary pack of cards is exactly the same as the probability of drawing any other 4 cards out of an ordinary pack of cards.

Likewise the probability of the lottery machine spitting out 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 is exactly the same as the probability of it spitting out any other combination of balls.

We may attach significance to what happens to be written on particular cards or balls, to the laws of probability they are all just cards and balls with marks on them.

And no, I have no idea what any of this has to do with the Turin Shroud either.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Wollery,
- Ask Humots if he agrees with you.
--- Jabba

So you aren't going to answer my question then.

[Jabba]

- I also gotta admit that I'm running into a problematic aspect of my different opinions -- but then, it's our long-winded debate that has made me recognize this troubling aspect...
- I'm finding that whereas I've read a particular claim from several different authors, often they are referring to the same research paper, and there's no link to the research paper.
- Sometimes, it's even worse, in that all these authors are referring to the same paper, which in turn was referring to one research paper -- for which, again, there is no link.
- So far, that's what I'm finding about the serum clot retraction rings... I'm still looking and will buy that one research paper if I have to, and can.
- Maybe, one of you has access to Miller and Pellicori, J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981)?
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by wollery

So you aren't going to answer my question then.

Wollery,
- I already gave the best answer I have (4081).
--- Jabba

P.S. But then, how many aces would you have to draw before you started getting suspicious and turned over the deck?

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Wollery,
- I already gave the best answer I have (4081).
--- Jabba

P.S. But then, how many aces would you have to draw before you started getting suspicious and turned over the deck?

But you're not drawing aces.

I asked why you are suspicious of the second deck, because I've already explained the category error you made with the example of drawing all aces.

In fact your entire hypothetical is flawed because it's perfectly possible to do the experiment you suggest (i.e. drawing one card at a time, replacing it, shuffling the deck, and drawing another card) and get nothing but aces by pure chance from a normal deck of cards. It's incredibly unlikely, but absolutely possible.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I also gotta admit that I'm running into a problematic aspect of my different opinions -- but then, it's our long-winded debate that has made me recognize this troubling aspect...
- I'm finding that whereas I've read a particular claim from several different authors, often they are referring to the same research paper, and there's no link to the research paper.
- Sometimes, it's even worse, in that all these authors are referring to the same paper, which in turn was referring to one research paper -- for which, again, there is no link.
- So far, that's what I'm finding about the serum clot retraction rings... I'm still looking and will buy that one research paper if I have to, and can.
- Maybe, one of you has access to Miller and Pellicori, J. Biol. Photgr. Asssoc., 49,71 (1981)?
--- Jabba

This is one of the things we have been saying. You cannot take anyone at their word, but especially not the agenda-drive STUURP people. Have you never, in all your 20 years on the case, thought to check the claims back to their source?

[wollery]

Well, I've tried my best to find the paper, but it isn't available through the University accounts that I have access to. It was published in the Journal of the Biological Photographic Association, which is now known as the Journal of Biocommunication.

Their website has this to say;

Quote:

JBC Editors

Each member association of The Journal of Biocommunication may select one Editor, whose responsibility it is to secure manuscript material and assure technical accuracy, validity, and usefulness of the Journal's content. Each Editor works with an Editorial Review Board selected by the sponsor association. Members of the Editorial Review Board critique and edit articles, and provide other editorial assistance, at the request of the Editor. The JBC accepts unsolicited materials for consideration. Unsolicited Materials may be submitted to the Managing Editor or to any of the Association Editors for consideration. For more information, please see contributors.

As well as this;

Quote:

The Journal of Biocommunication welcomes unsolicited materials for consideration. Such materials are reviewed by selected referees for the Features, Columns, Gallery, and Calendar sections and the Cover. Through submission of manuscripts, authors warrant that articles have not been published previously and that they will assign copyright for the article to the JBC with a signed "transfer of copyright." Additionally, authors are asked not to submit articles concurrently to the JBC and to another journal or publication.

Also, I can't find it in any impact factor listing.

[Humots]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Wollery,
- Ask Humots if he agrees with you.
--- Jabba

In fact, I do agree that:

Originally Posted by wollery

.
.
.
So his maths isn't the problem, it's his application of it that is.
.
.
.
Jabba compares the probability that he was born to drawing an ace from the pack. He reasons that he's the ace of spades, his mother was the ace of diamonds and his father was the ace of clubs. the problem is that in reality he's the three of clubs, his mother was the six of diamonds and his father was the seven of hearts.
.
.
.
Your mistake is in thinking that, because the probability that you would be born given that all of the people you are descended from had a low probability of being born, you are somehow special. You aren't. The probability that Muriel or James would be born was exactly the same as the probability that you would be born. You're the three of clubs, Muriel would have been the nine of spades and James would have been the Jack of hearts. You're not special, you just happened to be the next card in the randomly shuffled deck.
.
.
.

And as for

Originally Posted by Jabba

Humots,
- I gotta say, this is why I "love" probability -- it provides such great mental challenges. But then, I gotta admit that sometimes I'm not up to the particular challenge...
- Anyway, take a look at .../Act2Scene2.php.
- I do use Bayesian statistics in my argument for immortality, but I'm still hoping -- and, to a large extent, thinking -- that the Bayes Theorem doesn't really apply to my cards example. The cards example doesn't have any "background knowledge" to worry about.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba

Bayes' Theorem does most definitely apply to your card example, whatever you hope or think. I don't know what you mean by the card example not having any "background knowledge".

As for your argument on immortality, your argument is pure numerology. All you are doing is writing out an "equation" and assigning values to get the results you want.

By the way, if you are actually using Bayes' Theorem in your argument, shouldn't the initial formula for your probability be (assuming P(NR) + P(R) = 1.0)

P(NR|me & k) = P(me & k|NR)P(NR) / (P(me & k|NR)P(NR) + P(me & k|R)P(R))?

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Seconded.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Oh, sorry. Posted in error.

I don't actually have anything to add to this astute observation.

But, but you're the TLA Language Award award winner! If you can't do "astute" who can??

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.
You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.
'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.
If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?
You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.
Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.
But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…
So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?
It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…

Originally Posted by wollery

Not even close.

Why are you suspicious of the second deck of cards?

My point is that there's no reason to think that the second deck is in any way special, or shuffled in any particular order. In fact, even if you get four aces it could still be down to random chance.

Why is random chance not a perfectly good explanation for either deck?

In particular, why isn't random chance a perfectly good explanation for the second deck?

What's special about the second deck?

Wollery,
- That was my point. There is nothing special about the second deck -- but there is about the first deck. Why there is something special about the first deck is a little hard to explain, but if you kept drawing aces, at some point you'd get suspicious. And, you'd be suspicious because you've developed a new plausable hypothesis -- this might be a deck of all aces!
--- Jabba

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Wollery,
- That was my point. There is nothing special about the second deck -- but there is about the first deck. Why there is something special about the first deck is a little hard to explain, but if you kept drawing aces, at some point you'd get suspicious. And, you'd be suspicious because you've developed a new plausable hypothesis -- this might be a deck of all aces!
--- Jabba

What had this got to do with the radiocarbon dating of the shroud, other than to attempt to divert attention from your failure to address it?

Remember:

[Jabba]

- As far as I know, it's legal to use this picture of Jabba the Hut(?) as my avatar. Am I right?
--- Jabba

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

What had this got to do with the radiocarbon dating of the shroud, other than to attempt to divert attention from your failure to address it?

Catsmate,
-I was using probability to support my claim that the carbon dating is invalid. I was then accused (in effect) of not knowing my probability from a hole in the ground. Here, I need to show, if I can, that I do.
--- Jabba

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Wollery,
- That was my point. There is nothing special about the second deck -- but there is about the first deck. Why there is something special about the first deck is a little hard to explain, but if you kept drawing aces, at some point you'd get suspicious. And, you'd be suspicious because you've developed a new plausable hypothesis -- this might be a deck of all aces!
--- Jabba

And my point was that your analogy falls down because you aren't drawing aces.

You aren't the ace of spades, you're the 3 of clubs. What's special about drawing the 3 of clubs?

Or, put another way, explain why are you the ace of spades.

You've provided an analogy without explaining how it's valid.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by wollery

And my point was that your analogy falls down because you aren't drawing aces.

You aren't the ace of spades, you're the 3 of clubs. What's special about drawing the 3 of clubs?

Or, put another way, explain why are you the ace of spades.

You've provided an analogy without explaining how it's valid.

Wollery,
- OK. I think I understand your objection now.
- But, before we go on, do you agree that in the card situation, you would begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing aces, but that you wouldn't begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing a "hodpoge" of cards as you began to do with the second deck?
--- Jabba

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Wollery,
- OK. I think I understand your objection now.
- But, before we go on, do you agree that in the card situation, you would begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing aces, but that you wouldn't begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing a "hodpoge" of cards as you began to do with the second deck?
--- Jabba

So, when three separate laboratories independently dated the samples from the shroud to the same century, is that like a pack of aces, or a normal pack?

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

So, when three separate laboratories independently dated the samples from the shroud to the same century, is that like a pack of aces, or a normal pack?

Depends--which pack has the blood and scourge-mark motif on the back?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Wollery,
- OK. I think I understand your objection now.
- But, before we go on, do you agree that in the card situation, you would begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing aces, but that you wouldn't begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing a "hodpoge" of cards as you began to do with the second deck?
--- Jabba

The problem is not being suspicious of ace being drawn, the problem is what you see as aces, in your analogy, the majority of the rest of the world actually see as normal cards.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I also gotta admit that I'm running into a problematic aspect of my different opinions -- but then, it's our long-winded debate that has made me recognize this troubling aspect...
- I'm finding that whereas I've read a particular claim from several different authors, often they are referring to the same research paper, and there's no link to the research paper.
- Sometimes, it's even worse, in that all these authors are referring to the same paper, which in turn was referring to one research paper -- for which, again, there is no link.

There's a lesson to be learned there, somewhere...

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Jabba

do you agree that in the card situation, you would begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing aces, but that you wouldn't begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing a "hodpoge" of cards as you began to do with the second deck?

Most people would begin to get suspicious, but most people don't understand the laws of probability and (thanks to their pattern seeking cognitive biases) think that drawing three aces is less likely than drawing any other combination of three cards. They'd be wrong, it isn't, and they would have no good reason to be suspicious simply because those are the first cards they draw.

[TimCallahan]

Jabba: Should the Shroud be carbon tested again, would there be any circumstance under which you would accept the validity of a medieval carbon dating?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Jabba: Should the Shroud be carbon tested again, would there be any circumstance under which you would accept the validity of a medieval carbon dating?

How about if we just draw high card for it? Jabba gets high card the shroud is real, non-shrouders get high card it's a medieval fake.

Unfortunately for Jabba we all get to draw a card so it's bad odds but not as bad as all the labs being wrong in exactly the same way.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by tsig

How about if we just draw high card for it? Jabba gets high card the shroud is real, non-shrouders get high card it's a medieval fake.

Unfortunately for Jabba we all get to draw a card so it's bad odds but not as bad as all the labs being wrong in exactly the same way.

+1.

...I'll even bring a new deck...

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by tsig

... it's bad odds but not as bad as all the labs being wrong in exactly the same way.

I think you've forgotten the CT card.
Would that count as a Joker?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Jabba: Should the Shroud be carbon tested again, would there be any circumstance under which you would accept the validity of a medieval carbon dating?

Tim,
- A new carbon dating that follows the original protocols would be a good start. Unfortunately, if one considers some sort of radiation as possibly responsible for the image, the whole Shroud could be “contaminated” -- and then, any dating would be suspect. But in truth, a new – and “according to Hoyle” – dating that came up with the same, or approx the same, results would be a big step in the right direction (for me, the wrong direction), and take much of the wind out of my sails…
- Otherwise, probably the best way to change my opinion is to start showing me that the supportive claims being made by my side are not that well evidenced. And if you’ve noticed, that has already begun to happen – the most recent admission being post #4089.
- And BTW, the article to which I refer in that post should be on its way to me as we speak.
--- Jabba

P.S. Note that radiation is a natural phenomenon. And also, what's the possibility that what we consider "supernatural" today will be considered totally "natural" in the future?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Jabba

P.S. Note that radiation is a natural phenomenon. And also, what's the possibility that what we consider "supernatural" today will be considered totally "natural" in the future?

You forgot to mention aliens.

-10

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Tim,
- A new carbon dating that follows the original protocols would be a good start. Unfortunately, if one considers some sort of radiation as possibly responsible for the image, the whole Shroud could be “contaminated” -- and then, any dating would be suspect. --- Jabba

P.S. Note that radiation is a natural phenomenon. And also, what's the possibility that what we consider "supernatural" today will be considered totally "natural" in the future?

This seems convenient. It's also poisoning the well.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Humots

In your link, you state (bolding mine):

This is wrong. The event is not "drawing from the Ace deck or the normal deck". It is drawing an ace, and there are two possible ways to do this: "from the Ace deck or from the normal deck".

The question is, what is the probability that an ace, once drawn, came from the Ace deck?

One composite probability value is about four times the other, but that does not mean the probability of drawing from the ace deck once an ace has been drawn is as you state.

Determining this probability is a bit more complicated than simply comparing one composite probability against the other.

I'm not a math teacher (nor do I play one on TV) so I can't come up with my own argument in a reasonable time.

So please take a look at the Wiki entry on Bayes' Theorem. I can't give a direct URL (too few posts), but you can copy and paste

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_theorem

into your browser.

See the Introductory Example for a scenario similar to yours.

Humots,

- To me, at least, this is tricky stuff. But the following is a quote from Wiki re "Bayesian probability."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

Bayesian probability is one of the different interpretations of the concept of probability and belongs to the category of evidential probabilities. The Bayesian interpretation of probability can be seen as an extension of logic that enables reasoning with propositions whose truth or falsity is uncertain. To evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated in the light of new, relevant data.[1]
The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation. Bayesian probability interprets the concept of probability as "an abstract concept, a quantity that we assign theoretically, for the purpose of representing a state of knowledge, or that we calculate from previously assigned probabilities,"[2] in contrast to interpreting it as a frequency or "propensity" of some phenomenon.

- It seems to me that the underlined section refers to my card example.

--- Jabba

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Wollery,
- OK. I think I understand your objection now.
- But, before we go on, do you agree that in the card situation, you would begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing aces, but that you wouldn't begin to get suspicious if you kept drawing a "hodpoge" of cards as you began to do with the second deck?
--- Jabba

Yes.

Now try to demonstrate that you're the ace of spades.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- A new carbon dating that follows the original protocols would be a good start.

Why? Please explain what was wrong with the previous tests, and why any deviations from the original protocol were in any way significant.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by wollery

Yes.

Now try to demonstrate that your the ace of spades.

You win some, lose some, it's all the same to me. The pleasure is to play, it makes no difference what you say.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

You win some, lose some, it's all the same to me. The pleasure is to play, it makes no difference what you say.

At least someone's paying attention!

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by wollery

Yes.

Now try to demonstrate that your the ace of spades.

Wollery,

- OK.

- My argument is that given the scientific model, the probability of my existence at all, and my existence now, is analogous to the probability of drawing a humungus number of aces in a row from a normal deck. If that's true, my existence right now meets the first criterion for rejecting the scientific model in general -- i.e., given the scientific model, it is VERY unlikely that I would exist right now.
- I'm claiming that my existence right now also meets the second criterion for rejecting the scientific model -- there are, indeed, somewhat plausible models that would do a much better job of accounting for my existence right now than does the scientific model. (In addition, their plausibility should be added together in order to compare the scientific model with the compliment to it.) And this is where Bayes Theorem becomes applicable.
- The third criteria is also reached in that using the Bayes Theorem, we discover that given my existence, the probability of the scientific model being in place is WAY below 1% and the probability of something other than the scientific model being in place is WAY over 99%.

- I suspect that this will promote further irritation with me over on your side, but it probably is an accurate description of what I'm trying to claim.

--- Jabba