Monday, July 25, 2011

And Now for Some Real (hard) Science







State the problem
Now, we have a potential model here to evaluate. So, let's form a hypothesis.  PZ is a lying douche who just makes up shit to justify his bullshit.  Now, like a good scientist, I'll establish a null hypothesis that we can test:  PZ is an honest douche who just makes shit up to justify his bullshit.. It's important to be objective about these things.


For a control on this test, I'm using someone else's blog and their software over which I have no control.  Also, I've hired a bunch of trained monkeys to post comments there to see what happens as we approach the limit imposed by Overlord PZ Liars.

Test procedure was as follows:
trained monkeys typed a lot. As we know, 20 monkeys on 20 keyboards . . .

Data collected. (see figure 8, by a FuQu2 recursive algorithmic analysis, we can see the following pattern emerge - note, not to scale)

Analysis: this part has been omitted so that the conclusion is much easier for you to accept.

Conclusion:
We have collected so much data that at the 100% confidence level, we can reject the null hypothesis.

Ruminations: this section is much better than the conclusion.  Note how many threads PZ indicates have not been censored. Also note that this says nothing whatever about how many threads were censored. For instance, if I show that I haven't killed 10 people, does this in any way indicate that I have killed no one? (This supports my 100% confidence level - like PZ Liars I too ignore inconvenient data!)


(this version is only a draft to be used internally; not yet ready for the referee process before submission to peer-review in Pharyngula)

[edit: for the record - in this one blog post I have come as close to publishing a scientific paper in a reputable journal as PZ Liars has since being graduated from grad school. Just sayin'!]

6 comments:

rystefn said...

LoL... I likes it, and will immediately be adopting PZ Lyers (or some spelling to be worked out as I go).

Justicar said...

Oh shit!

Why didn't I think of this before?

I must go edit in another funny!!!!!!0!!!!!

Verily, I laughed said...

You know what? You're sort of an excellent internet user.

Justicar said...

Well, thank you, Verily. =^_^=
Say, Verily, any relation to Sarah Lee?

Anonymous said...

Meh. PZ always, so far as I know, closes his threads at or near the 1000 comment mark. Not particularly strong criticism here.

I'd delurk if I could figure why the profile thing won't work, grr. Anyway, I'm the one who voted for infinity so feel free to ignore that vote now :)

Justicar said...

The link in this thread is to a post in which he closed comments at roughly the number 0.

He made a post. To talk about, you were directed to leave his website to discuss it.

Call that what you will, but I've expressed my thoughts on it.

I am definitely going to do some writing on Hamza and Craig's very interesting claims that no infinities exist except as strangled axioms and invented obscurities in mathematics.

Hell, for that matter, on their curious protestations that that something being infinite in one direction doesn't imply it's eternal or infinite in the other direction.

The whole nature of "infinite" is that it extends without limit. If something is infinite in one direction, then you're in a real pickle since any point you'd care to choose is as far away as any other point. So, even assuming there's a starting pointing, to come from infinity towards it is an infinite distance.

But I don't know that writing on this when I'm drugged the fuck up on morphine is a good idea. Although, writing it and reading it in a few weeks when I'm not drugged might be interesting.