The grift that keeps on giving.
Hes got this new shit where he "mathematically disproves evolution"
basiclly he wrote a bullshit book with....an ai co writer....
so I used the same ai he used to debunk his who thing.
it was kind of a fun exorcise.
Even the ai was calling him a grifter lol
One example is an equation that evolutionists state as k = u. I forget what the variables are but Vox plugs in some empirical data and finds that k ~ 0.75 u, something like a factor a factor of 3/4 instead of 1. Therefore he claims evolution is wrong.
Except there is no error analysis. Of course real data will never give k = 1.000000 u. It could be k=0.99 u, k = 0.9 u, k=0.8 u, etc.
At what point do you decide if that constant differing from 1.0 is significant or not? This is what error analysis drilled into every first year STEM student is for. You need the margin of error for each number you put into that equation and then propagate the margins through the calculation to the final answer's.
Vox doesn't bother to do this. It doesn't seem to even occur to him to do this.
It's just bunk, only going through the motions of being a "scientist". But people will give him money.
I think VOX day said he has a very high IQ but is very bad at math and got his IQ from other parts of the test
There is a difference between choosing margins of error for variables & plugging the values within that range into equations and statistical significance testing
For example you could use significant digits and say that the last digit is significant but uncertain and the second to last digit could be off by 1 this is different than signifance testing
sigh
hes acting as if using claude is somehow destroying people like Dawkins os Gould on these kinds of scientific debates.
simple reality, if you don't submit your shit to peer review and scrutiny thrers not much to talk about because you've already betrayed a fundamental aspect of research.
People toil for decades in the minute of these things, and they dont just come out and say "well a fundamental theory is negated because I used a fucking ai to play with numbers"
I thought Claude was a computerised simulated talk therapy psychologist from more than twenty years ago
But not any ordinary simulated talk therapist
One designed to be extremely funny and say random stuff that was a modified version of a simulated talk therapist called Frank that was designed to actually help treat patients and not as a joke
I do not know how to quickly confirm or refute this
I just remember being shown this joke program
Memory imperfect
