>[Hammond]
>but today these rotations are done purely mathematically
>by large computers (untouched by human hands) so
>they are no longer "subjective". Varimax, Promax,
>Oblimon, and many other hyperplane count algorithms are
Yes, I am aware of this...but the computer does what it is told to do, and
there are many "knobs" which can be turned slightly to produce desired
results. My point is simply that you don't describe all the many
"subjective" details that go into finding the results you present. Such
details are necessary for anyone attempting to verify your findings. The
mathematical criterion used for rotation (e.g. Varimax, Promax, etc.) can
make a difference in the results (and even if it doesn't the method used
should be stated). Yes, SPSS (not SPXX) provides 5 rotation criteria, but
there are others as well. In general terms, when you cook, the recipe you
use makes a big difference. As will the criterion for selecting how many
eigenvalues to retain (all above a value of 1.0 is standard, but is also
arbitrary) yet you make a big case of "And only 1 factor found", etc.
without stating how much variance is retained. And since you appear to be
doing multiple levels of factor analysis (e.g. factor analysis of the
reduced data) these details are multiplied. Not to mention the fact that
you appear to be using non-orthogonal factors.
My other point (AND THE MORE IMPORTANT ONE) was that association does not
necessarily imply causation. You use words like "comes from" and "are a
representation of" and "is taken out of" and "causes" and "proves" very
liberally and seemingly without justification.
> This is why Hammond's 1994 peer reviewed paper is
>of such seminal importance... it IDENTIFIES the actual
>physical causation of E,N,P,g in Psychometric F.A.
"INTERPRETS" would be a better word choice here....for you still just have
an association and not necessarily a cause.....and even in this paper you
don't fully describe the methods you used....(in the sense that I described
above). A double dissociation would make the results much stronger.
>My proof of God, naturally, uses all of the data in the
>history of the subject, 100 years of it, including 200,000
>published papers.
This doesn't matter...it still doesn't get away from the basic rule of
statistics that an association does not necessarily imply a causation...you
overstate your results.....
Finally, you misunderstood my last point. The scenario you present in your
book (and stated as true but with changed names) seems to be taking quite a
low view of the Bible. *This is not a statement about your axiomatic
proof*...rather it is a question about your theology. Here are a few of
your statements as examples:
-"Or take Jesus walking on water. We know that he never walked across Lake
Galilee."
-"The Bible writers simply euphemized it by making up a story about him"
-"For instance, consider the miracles cited in the Bible. Now, we all know
that no one can turn a stick into a snake..."
-"the Bible, is simply a metaphorical description of the miraculous
effects of incremental brain growth on the appearance of the World."
Based upon these statements, the Bible does not appear to be a book you
hold to be "divine inspired, trustworthy, and authoritative". Did God
inspire the Bible writers to "make up stories"? Was the virgin birth a
real event in history? Who decides what was "made up" and what was
real? If you do consider the Bible an inspired book, I would humbly
suggest that you reflect this in your writing....after all, the goal is to
work toward the establishment of the kingdom of God, not to minimize or
ridicule it. Right?
For His Glory,
VDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 20 2001 - 15:02:25 EDT