[Hammond]
Look, Chuck, you're just another powerful and enraged bull
who is infuriated by not being able to make any sense out
of "God". Only in your case, you've become an iconoclast
and a practical joker.
Please read carefully my recent (a few minutes ago) post to
Moorad Alexanian, even a chemical geologist such as your
self, who is strong enough to get a PhD, should be able to
figure this out. Surely you must realize who i am.. I'm one
of those street bums hanging out ion front of Dunkin Donuts
described in my post to Moorad.... so was Jesus. Now look,
I'm the kind of guy that finds the theory, but I don't have
the muscle to get it across, but the victims of society
(Creationists, Fundamentalists, even the 700 Club) is going
to find out about it sooner or later. At that point, it's
going to be the tall and the wonderful, and the fresh smelling
scientists like you who are going to be called on the carpet
by the public to tell them what this is.... just like last
time (i.e. the Vatican). The last thing you guys should be
doing is taking a hostile view of this or arguing with me.
You're twice my size and the public watching this knows it.
You should be patiently pumping me for information while
you can. I'm not where the fight is going to happen, you're
going to get it from billions of religious people when
they find out about this, and identify you as a "scientist".
Beating up on me isn't going to do any good, they proved that
with jesus. I hope a word to the wise is sufficient.
Vandergraaf, Chuck wrote:
>
> To all:
> I had thought that, by now, this topic had been put to rest. Simply put, to
> prove the existence of an infinite being using our finite understanding is,
> IMHO, not going to work. One can, I suppose, postulate that, given
> sufficient food, we can all grow a bit bigger, as Hammond suggests in his
> growth vs. age curves (but necessarily smarter! Otherwise the Nobel
> Laureate community would contain a lot of Sumo wrestlers).
>
> To Moorad:
> Note that George Hammond did not ask you for your degrees in religion or
> psychometry; he merely asked for a "CV in ... Psychometry and Religion."
>
> To George:
> I don't recall you having presented your credentials either. You claim to
> have a MS in Physics and I'll accept that. But how do you define (from your
> initial e-mail, dated 2001 May 10)
> "2. A graduate level expertise in Psychometry (Factor Analysis)
> 3. A professional competence in Divinity"
>
> I take it that this means that you have done graduate work in psychometry
> but where? Did you leave with a degree? If so, what was this degree? As to
> your third qualification, how do you define "professional competence in
> Divinity?"
>
> I will admit that I didn't go to all the links on your web site; I lost
> interest when I read excerpt after excerpt of the ASA correspondence. No,
> it was not because I had to do some serious hot rodding in my MR2 as you
> suggested in your e-mail dated 2001 May 12. It's a bit of s stretch to
> consider a 1.6 L engined-car a "hot rod." ;-) However, for private
> transportation over distances greater than I care to bike, it's about as
> environmentally responsible as it comes.
>
> This will be my final words on this topic (unless I'm provoked)
>
> Chuck Vandergraaf
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moorad Alexanian [mailto:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday May 22, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: ghammond@mediaone.net; americanscientificaffiliation
> Subject: Re: RE: Just a short comment on Factor Analysis, and on God...
>
> >>===== Original Message From George Hammond <ghammond@mediaone.net> =====
> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >>
> >> The whole thing of a scientific proof of God is pure nonsense.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >May we have your CV in Science, Psychometry and Religion please?
> >Degrees, peer reviewed papers?
>
> [Moorad]
> Why must I have a degree in religion and psychometry? I thought we were
> discussing a scientific proof of God? Surely, religion is not science.
> Science is based on non-human measuring devices.
>
> >
> >> It can only
> >> be true if one has a highly skewed understanding of what science is. The
> >> data for science is obtained by means of devices that are mechanical,
> >> electrical, nuclear, etc. Where is the scientific data that proves the
> >> existence of God?
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >The variation in human ability to perceive reality, as
> >measured by Psychometry, IS A DIRECT SCIENTIFIC MEASUREMENT
> >OF GOD, as proven by Hammond's discovery.
> > Some people are closer to "absolute reality" than others,
> >and human developmental growth is the mediating variable.
> >In the case of Mental Retardation, or 3rd World Starvation
> >Growth Stunting this is obvious. Less obvious, is the fact
> >that normal people have a variation in percentage of normal
> >growth. This is "God", well known to authorities throughout
> >history, and now is measured and proven by Hammond's discovery.
> >Amateurs in Science and Theology are certainly entitled to
> >inquire about it, but hardly qualified to challenge it without
> >the necessary professional qualifications. Sorry.
>
> [Moorad]
> The detection of God or the spiritual by man is not a proof of the existence
> neither of God nor of the spiritual. It is biblical reveled truth that gives
> support to such detections. People can conceive of the non-existing. Does
> that mean that whatever man thinks, exists?
>
> >
> >
> >> The unbridled ruminations of man can lead to nonsense.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >You're telling me? A physicist.
> >
> >
> >> Man
> >> can prove nothing! It takes 126 pages in a math book to get to the
> statement
> >> that 1+1 =2. Too bad that a good brain is used so wastefully. Moorad
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >Oh sure, the heretics rant and rave that up is down, black is white,
> >negative is positive, cold is hot, tall is short, Evil is Good,
> >blah, blah, blah.... but the majority of normal people in the real
> >world certainly don't even listen to them. Frankly, the majority
> >accepts the fact that "1 'n 1 is 2" on the basis of their own personal
> >life experience.
>
> [Moorad]
> Scientific laws are cast in mathematical forms and the logic of mathematics
> allows rigorous derivations from mathematically based scientific theories.
> Mathematical proofs are the prototype of logical thinking. You must use
> them to prove anything.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Adrian Teo <ateo@whitworth.edu>
> >> To: 'George Hammond' <ghammond@mediaone.net>; asa@calvin.edu
> >> <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> Date: Monday, May 21, 2001 2:14 PM
> >> Subject: RE: Just a short comment on Factor Analysis, and on God...
> >>
> >> >Judging from this response below and the other ad hominems directed at
> >> >Vince, I think George is not interested in discussion. I think this may
> be
> >> a
> >> >joke, but with all due respect to George, if he really takes this
> >> seriously,
> >> >then I should not insult him by calling it a joke. So respectfully,
> George,
> >> >I don't think you have a case here and I am not persuaded by your
> thesis.
> >> >
> >> >Adrian.
> >> >
> >> >Note: The peer-reviewed published paper offers no new analyses, only
> >> >theoretical speculations - hardly proof of anything, let alone how the
> >> >models can actually be integrated.
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: George Hammond [mailto:ghammond@mediaone.net]
> >> >Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:38 PM
> >> >To: asa@calvin.edu
> >> >Subject: Re: Just a short comment on Factor Analysis, and on God...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Adrian Teo wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Vince is essentially correct in his claim that factor analysis (FA)
> does
> >> >> not interpret. To be more precise, FA is not even a single method, but
> it
> >> >> refers to a collection of related algebraic manipulations which is
> part
> >> of
> >> >> a large family of analyses of covariance matrices. FA can be
> exploratory,
> >> >> where you allow the data to "speak for itself" or confirmatory, where
> you
> >> >> test particular hypotheses about the underlying structure of the data
> >> set.
> >> >> The data reduction approach that Vince and I think Hammond is talking
> >> >> about sounds like Principle Components Analysis, an exploratory
> approach.
> >> >> For a quick, easy and reliable reference, Sage University has a series
> of
> >> >> booklets on statistical procedures and there is one by Kim and Mueller
> >> >> that introduces this class of analysis. This discussion has sometimes
> >> >> given the impression that FA is some complex, exotic statistical
> approach
> >> >> that few understand, when in fact, it is commonly used and discussed
> in
> >> >> personality assessments, aptitude and achievement test constructions,
> and
> >> >> diagnostic measures. Many graduate students in various branches of
> >> >> psychology take such a course in their second or third year.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >[Hammond]
> >> > This is all true and of course might have been copied off the
> >> >first page of any (modern) textbook on Factor Analysis.
> >> > However, you don't have to know anything about Factor Analysis
> >> >mathematics to figure out what the scientific proof of God is...
> >> >all the F.A. work has already been done and it took thousands of
> >> >scientists a hundred years to do it.
> >> > The bottom line is that all evidence converges to E,N,P,g
> >> >at the 2nd order, and that these 3 dimensions (eigenvecors, Factors)
> >> >are caused by the gross macroscopic structural geometry of the
> >> >brain (Hammond 1994). Most of you have heard of "Sperrian
> Lateralization",
> >> >well, that's just the 1st-axis, turns out there are 2-more just like
> >> >Sperry's axis (Bell-Magendie, and the Neuraxis itself). This
> >> >causes E,N,P. When you add IQ to that, which is a "time dimension"
> >> >(mental speed = IQ), then you have 3-space axes and 1-time axis,
> >> >and SURE ENOUGH, you can show how they are physically, mechanically,
> >> >causally caused by the 4-axis of space-time (X,Y,Z,t so called)
> >> >of real space. Now let me repeat that, X,Y,Z,t PHYSICALLY
> >> >MECHANICALLY CAUSES E,N,P,g in Psychology.... they are not just
> >> >"similar", there is a direct chain of physical causation (brain
> >> >geometry is caused by space geometry).
> >> > OK, from there (all of which has now been overwhelmingly proven),
> >> >it is only a trivial step to the scientific proof of God.... in fact,
> >> >all you do is factor the 4x4 correlation matrix of E,N,P,g (which
> >> >can only have a single factor), and that factor is GOD.
> >> >QED, God exists.
> >> >
> >> >> And BTW, the ENP by Hans Eysenck is only one of several models that
> >> >> reduces personality measurements to common factors. A much more widely
> >> >> accepted model is the Big Five (as the name suggests, there are not 3,
> >> but
> >> >> 5 factors). Eysenck's ENP has not been consistently supported in the
> >> >> literature.
> >> >
> >> >[Hammond]
> >> >A little bit of knowledge is dangerous (fortunately
> >> >not dangerous enough). Turns out 3 of the Big-5 dimension
> >> >ARE IN FACT identical to Eysenck's E,N,P.. and the other
> >> >two are simply two diagonals in the E-N plane. I have published
> >> >the proof of this in the peer reviewed literature (Hammond 1994):
> >> >
> >> >HAMMOND G.E. (1994) The Cartesian Theory: Unification of
> >> > Eysenck and Gray, in: New Ideas In Psychology,
> >> > Vol 12(2) pp 153-167, Pergamon Press
> >> >
> >> >And it reconciles ALL of the known and published F.A. models in
> >> >the literature including Eysencks Giant 3, AVA 4, Big-5, Brand's
> >> >Big-6, K&J's 7F, Saucier's 9F, and finally Cattell's 13F 2nd
> >> >order model. as is proven by Hammond (1994), ALL OF THESE MODELS
> >> >are just the various symmetric redactions of the 13-Symmetry axes
> >> >of the common cube. This is proven to two decimal point accuracy
> >> >by simply taking the arcosine the published correlation coefficients
> >> >and showing that form said geometrical structure. Cattell, the old
> >> >master, is of course the only one to have actually resolved all
> >> >13 actors of the cube. The Big-5 was discovered by Norman, Goldberg,
> >> >Costa & McCrae etc. who are basically academic types equipped
> >> >with a desktop computer, commercial Factor Programs, and readily
> >> >available captive test subjects (students, patients) etc.
> >> > Of course the stronger the redaction (lower the number of redacted
> >> >axes) that you take in the cube, the MORE ROBUST the result, since
> >> >you're forcing all of the variance into fewer factors. In fact,
> >> >Eysenck's-3 (ENP) is the STRONGEST simply because of this, while
> >> >Cattell's "all 13 cubic axes" is the hardest to clearly resolve
> >> >because the variance is spread among all 13 axis.
> >> > BTW, you can look at a cube and count the axes; 3-Normals, 4-Body
> >> >Diagonals, and 6 "face diagonals" (see any geometry book). So,
> >> >3+4+6=13.
> >> >
> >> >For your reading convenience and enjoyment I have placed a
> >> >fully illustrated facsimile copy on my website at:
> >> >
> >> >http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/cart.html
-- BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW: ----------------------------------------------------------- George Hammond, M.S. Physics Email: ghammond@mediaone.net Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html -----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 22 2001 - 19:18:25 EDT