Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Will Wagers <hyle AT airmail.net>]

Peter Kirk Writes:

>I don't wish to support Jim West's prejudiced views. But I think you
>also need to be "tentative and respectful" rather than asserting that
>others' statements "are false", and that they are wandering outside
>their areas of expertise when you don't know what those areas of
>expertise are.

A palpable hit. However, in some cases, I do know. In all cases, I can
tell from the comments whether the individual is responding to the
religious bastardizations of "codes" or to the the scientific (statistical)
version.

>Please can you submit examples of supposedly
>"statistically-significant codes" so that I and others on the list
>with suitable training can examine whether they really are
>statistically significant.

The examples I would use are in the original papers already referenced.

As anyone familiar with those papers knows, they tested the possibilities
that any text would provide the same results, and--obviously--they
established that they do not occur by chance--which was, after all, the
whole point of the papers.

So far as I know, no reasonable explanation has yet been offfered for the
statistical significance.

Will Wagers     hyle AT gte.net    "Reality is the best metaphor."