(September 30, 2014 at 2:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 1:54 am)Esquilax Wrote: Still haven't bothered wiki-ing the term yet, hmm?

Here, let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

Quote:The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning a false conclusion is inferred.[1] This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.

Except that I proved that the golden ratio is a repeated pattern that does exist.
Did you not watch the video of the mathematician explaining the fibonacci sequence?
Still don't see how this applies.

What is the ratio between my thumb and big toe? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my forearm and shin? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my nostril and ear canal? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my my spine and skull ? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my knee cap and hat size? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my ring finger and index finger? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my testicles and sperm? Not the golden ratio.

You are engaged in the Sharpshooter Fallacy. That is a partial list of your misses.

(September 30, 2014 at 9:20 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 8:06 am)Alex K Wrote: I think xe's not looking for connections or an underlying principle, but exactly the opposite: a miracle - that it is so unlikely for the "exact" golden ratio to appear in nature that it is an smoking gun indicator of supernatural interference.

Which is self-refuting: the probability of the golden ratio appearing in nature is precisely the same as for any random number. So I guess I'm giving the guy more credit than that.

Well, yes, the probability to encounter any arbitrary real number as a ratio in nature is 0 (and that's before we deal with finite resolution and uncertainty etc.). If you want to make an argument you have to

- predict the number (or a small range of numbers) before ever measuring, or
- as a weaker alternative, find a deep underlying reason why precisely this number is special, which is so convincing that one can even accept it as evidence after the fact.

However, so far this is basically the definition of pre- and postdictions in theoretical physics or generally the natural sciences. If you want to draw theological conclusions, your source of information about this special number has to be of a inherently religious nature, and I don't see how that should be verified even in principle if it's not a true prediction.
Unless, of course, you want to go the presuppositionalist route and claim that any connection between maths and nature can only be present due to god, but you don't need the golden ratio for that as it doesn't add anything new.

The golden ratio is special in mathematics (and by extension physics) as the limit of the fibonacci sequence which occurs in some dynamical systems, and such, so it is a feature of the natural world, like pi. In my opinion this argues against any religious conclusion one might draw, because even if the ratio did appear significantly more often than random (which it probably doesn't), or did appear to a precision not explainable by chance (*), there is a candidate mathematical/physics reason why nature might produce it every once in a while, just like rotational symmetry produces pi by allowing gravity to form balls.

It would not be the least bit surprising if some geometrical features of seashells and molecules exhibit this ratio, since their physical production mechanism, being constrained by geometry of space and maybe governed by chaotic dynamics, might somehow invoke this mathematical constant. That means absolutely nothing except that physics approximately follows certain mathematical relations, but we knew that already. It doesn't get much more geometric than say the group structure of the standard model. Of course we find numbers in nature which corresponds to some simple mathematical principles. That's called science, not God.

(*) A good example of that is given by the OPs Earth-Moon-Example. Using the numbers xe provides, the hypthenuse is the golden ratio to three or four digit precision. These numbers are however not even within the range of plausible definitions of Earth and Moon radius (pole and equatorial radii). If you plug those in, you miss the true golden ratio very nearly - by less than a permille, but still a definitive miss. Now you have to compensate for the number of astronomical comparisons you can make, and the number of ways you can compare earth and moon (really, it needs to be sqrt(e^2+(e+m)^2)/e ?

Still, there might be an interesting mechanism explaining why collisions of astronomical objects tend to produce such ratios. Something interesting might be learned from this observation. Unfortunately, the religion our OP does what it does to so many religious people: it gives hir a prefabricated answer and suffocates curiosity before it can even ask the really interesting follow-up question from which something could be learned.

Note: in my last post, I should have mentioned cherry picking. Picking some things and not others to "find" the golden ratio is more of cherry picking than the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

(September 30, 2014 at 10:59 am)RobbyPants Wrote: Note: in my last post, I should have mentioned cherry picking. Picking some things and not others to "find" the golden ratio is more of cherry picking than the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

It definitely is both at the same time. You keep looking for any remotely interesting number in any number of places, and then look for a match in the matrix.

(September 30, 2014 at 9:20 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 8:06 am)Alex K Wrote: I think he's not looking for connections or an underlying principle, but exactly the opposite: a miracle - that it is so unlikely for the "exact" golden ratio to appear in nature that it is an smoking gun indicator of supernatural interference.

Which is self-refuting: the probability of the golden ratio appearing in nature is precisely the same as for any random number. So I guess I'm giving the guy more credit than that.

Ok, now prove it.

---

(September 30, 2014 at 9:30 am)Chas Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 2:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Except that I proved that the golden ratio is a repeated pattern that does exist.
Did you not watch the video of the mathematician explaining the fibonacci sequence?
Still don't see how this applies.

What is the ratio between my thumb and big toe? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my forearm and shin? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my nostril and ear canal? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my my spine and skull ? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my knee cap and hat size? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my ring finger and index finger? Not the golden ratio.
What is the ratio between my testicles and sperm? Not the golden ratio.

You are engaged in the Sharpshooter Fallacy. That is a partial list of your misses.

https://pistrucciartworks.wordpress.com/...roportion/

Quote:I am documenting a shortened version here for my own reference –
From the illustration, we can see several occurrences of the golden ratio found in the human body

Sole to navel (1) : Sole to crown (Phi)
Sole to knee : Sole to navel
Navel to shoulder : Navel to crown
Knees to calf muscle : Knees to sole
Navel to mid-thigh : Navel to knees
Navel to sternum or mid-chest : Navel to base of throat
Throat base to temple or brow bone : Throat base to crown
End of calf muscle down to ankle : Calf muscle to sole
Mid-thigh to start of kneecap : Mid-thigh to end of kneecap
Navel to crotch : Navel to mid-thigh
Navel to sternum base : Navel to sternum or mid-chest
Throat base to earlobe : Throat base to top of ear or brow bone
Brow bone to hairline : Brow bone to crown
Nose to chin : Nose to base of throat

So Huggy74, even if that were all true, what is the conclusion you draw from this, and how do you justify this conclusion? Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are anomalously many (more than random) things in nature which have something close to the golden ratio, a fact which you have not proven, a fact I would find mildly interesting, but not terribly shocking. So what? There are surprisingly many things in the world which have this strange ratio 3.14159265358979323...., where I come from we call them balls. Balls do not prove god either, (even if some macho men disagree). What do you deduce from that and how?

(September 30, 2014 at 1:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 1:12 am)Surgenator Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Your 34 vs 21 is a measurement done from 1953. When you look at it more closely, things aren't that simple.

Ok this is the part where I get to
you muppet, even by your article, the first measurement is still 34/20, with the second measurement starting at 22, I think we can safely stick with 34/21.

The updated measurement was 22-26. Read more carefully. The mean value 24 will result in 34/24 that does NOT equal the golden ratio.

(September 30, 2014 at 11:14 am)Alex K Wrote: So Huggy74, even if that were all true, what is the conclusion you draw from this, and how do you justify this conclusion? Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are anomalously many (more than random) things in nature which have something close to the golden ratio, a fact which you have not proven, a fact I would find mildly interesting, but not terribly shocking. So what? There are surprisingly many things in the world which have this strange ratio 3.14159265358979323...., where I come from we call them balls. Balls do not prove god either, (even if some macho men disagree). What do you deduce from that and how?

Pi is defined as the ratio of the Circumference to the Diameter of a Circle.
so yes, you will find Pi in all circles.

Also as i said before, you guys act like I'm the one that came up with this concept when it's existed for thousands of years, how are you guys any different from people that deny evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Quote:Some of the greatest mathematical minds of all ages, from Pythagoras and Euclid in ancient Greece, through the medieval Italian mathematician Leonardo of Pisa and the Renaissance astronomer Johannes Kepler, to present-day scientific figures such as Oxford physicist Roger Penrose, have spent endless hours over this simple ratio and its properties. But the fascination with the Golden Ratio is not confined just to mathematicians. Biologists, artists, musicians, historians, architects, psychologists, and even mystics have pondered and debated the basis of its ubiquity and appeal. In fact, it is probably fair to say that the Golden Ratio has inspired thinkers of all disciplines like no other number in the history of mathematics.

---

(September 30, 2014 at 11:46 am)Surgenator Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 1:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok this is the part where I get to
you muppet, even by your article, the first measurement is still 34/20, with the second measurement starting at 22, I think we can safely stick with 34/21.

The updated measurement was 22-26. Read more carefully. The mean value 24 will result in 34/24 that does NOT equal the golden ratio.

Um, no.
Once again muppet, the exact quote is "According to another study, when measured in a particular solution, the DNA chain measured 22 to 26 ångströms wide (2.2 to 2.6 nanometres), and one nucleotide unit measured 3.3 Å (0.33 nm) long."

So in other words, in some other study (not mentioned) under special circumstances you get a different measurement. Nowhere does it state that this is the standard measurement.

(September 30, 2014 at 11:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote: https://pistrucciartworks.wordpress.com/...roportion/

Quote:I am documenting a shortened version here for my own reference –
From the illustration, we can see several occurrences of the golden ratio found in the human body

Sole to navel (1) : Sole to crown (Phi)

Wrong.

Quote:Navels. We read that you can reveal φ by measuring the height of a person and the height of the person's navel, measured from the floor. The ratio of navel height to total height is supposed to be φ. And with the current interest in navels, the implication is that this is one indicator of attractive bodily proportions. Has anyone checked real people? In the interest of science I checked that assertion for a large sample of the most popular swimsuit models. This should check the claim that bodies judged "beautiful" should have the ideal characteristics of form, including the ideal navel height. [It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.] The results averaged 0.58±0.01, with rather small variation. So much for that myth.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

@Huggy74

You haven't addressed my question at all, your answer is merely a strange change of topic.

Who came up with what is entirely irrelevant in science. What Darwin said when, how long ago, and whose idea it was originally, has no bearing on our scientific acceptance of evolution today. Only evidence and arguments count, and I repeat myself

Quote:So Huggy74, even if that were all true, what is the conclusion you draw from this, and how do you justify this conclusion? Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are anomalously many (more than random) things in nature which have something close to the golden ratio, a fact which you have not proven, a fact I would find mildly interesting, but not terribly shocking. So what? There are surprisingly many things in the world which have this strange ratio 3.14159265358979323...., where I come from we call them balls. Balls do not prove god either, (even if some macho men disagree). What do you deduce from that and how?