Not a desperately urgent request but a quick solution would be very nice - it's about a Biorhythm program

[rikona]

Hello Basil,

Sunday, October 31, 2010, 11:38:59 PM, Basil wrote:

BC> On 01/11/2010 13:00, rikona wrote:
>> Hello Basil,
>>
>> Sunday, October 31, 2010, 12:58:23 AM, Basil wrote:
>>
>> BC>  Read my response(s) to Ric.
>>
>> I did. I get it. You belive it works. My apologies for upsetting you
>> by mentioning the science.
>>    

BC> What "science" did you mention?

In the interest of brevity, I gave a short, but accurate, one-line
summary. There are thousands of scientific journal papers, reports,
and books re biological rhythms - it is quite a large field. Be sure
to check Wikipedia re 'biorhythms' if you'd like a somewhat longer
summary. Then check Wikipedia re 'biological rhythms' to get a brief
intro to *real* biological rhythms.

It is interesting to note that those thousands of scientific articles,
which have analyzed **lots** of real data, for lots of people, using
modern, very powerful analytical tools, and the 'biorhythm' cycles
have almost never been seen statistically. I say almost, because a
hormonal cycle in women is readily apparent in many studies, and is
close in length to one of the biorhythm cycles. That one does have
effects on behavior - but I probably don't have to tell you folks
that. :-)) Note also that that hormonal cycle length can vary quite a
lot in different women, and from time to time in the same woman, as do
essentially all real biological cycles observed in people. The
absolutely fixed cycle length, for all people, at all times, is simply
nonsense.

BC> I have a very strong feeling that I am very safe in assuming that you 
BC> believe what the bible contains is "science", right?

That is sooooooo wrong it is hilarious! It is hard to imagine a way in
which you could be less correct.

BUT - it does suggest that you form very strong beliefs, which you are
certain are absolutely true, on the basis of no factual information/
material whatsoever.

BC> Read the book I mentioned in my response to Ric.

Well, duh... of course I read the book... long ago. And many other
scientific articles re biological rhythms as well. I have done my own
experimental studies and analyses, with data collected from real
people, so I have first-hand experience with this topic.

Have you ever read any book, or report, or scientific journal article
about *real* biological rhythms?

BC> That book contains a lot of statistical information.

No, it does not. It contains carefully selected coincidences. If it
was truly statistical data, it would have both cases where it did
work, and cases where it didn't. Any cases that didn't work were, of
course, not put in the book.

Here's how to write your own book and be famous:

Look up famous people and events, the date they happened, and the
birth date of the people involved. Select *ONLY* famous people and
well known events, because people will already have these in their
mind and it will be more convincing to readers. Lots of folks love to
hear gossip about acting/sports/etc stars. Avoid anybody/anything that
was not a headline because this will not be as "impressive". The idea
is to make your readers into believers. :-)

Then run the cycles and see if any one of the three sort of coincide.
If you run the proper numerical analysis, for the parameters in his
book, you will see that this is not that difficult - there will be,
statistically, many 'acceptable' coincidences. This not only makes it
quite easy to find a couple of hundred examples to put in the book,
but it also makes it certain that people will have a number of
'acceptable' coincidences in their own lives. This will assure that
they will become believers.

If a particular person/event does not happen to show an 'interesting'
coincidence, do NOT put it in the book. You have to make it look like
the method is infallible. :-)

Why do this? Simple - he made a **LOT** of money selling many
thousands of very cheap and easy-to-do analyses. It was a rather
successful con job. :-)

BC> Enough statistics to even make YOUR mind spin out of control.

An alternative title for the book might be "How to lie with what seems
like statistics" - to paraphrase the more famous book. :-) It did not
make my head spin, either. :-) My reaction was that is was a rather
well done scam that would likely fool almost everyone. Why? Because
very, VERY few people 'think statistically'. [In the area of risk, for
example, almost everyone believes the level of risk to be quite
different from the true statistical risk. But that's another
discussion altogether...]

I am surprised that someone like you, who has "worked for years in an
organisation which dealt with nothing BUT statistics, statistics,
statistics, statistics" would fall for such an obvious non-statistical
scam.

-- 

 rikona