|
[QUOTE=mart_r;182709]
I'd surely have more to say, but I need to read the whole thread first. Or is there a short summary somewhere?[/QUOTE] No, it's honestly worth it to read the entire thread. Otherwise, you wouldn't get much (if any) out of it. |
A look at the relationship between religious belief and societal ills
(Although the article discusses evolutionary science, I have not quoted paragraphs that were primarily concerned with evolution -- because this is not a thread about evolution. However, neither have I broken up quoted paragraphs that mentioned evolution without that being the primary topic.) [URL]http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html[/URL] Abstract: [quote]Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.[/quote]Regarding "societal dysfunction and health", the article explains: [quote][11] Data on aspects of societal health and dysfunction are from a variety of well-documented sources including the UN Development Programme (2000). Homicide is the best indicator of societal violence because of the extremity of the act and its unique contribution to levels of societal fear, plus the relatively reliable nature of the data (Beeghley; Neapoletan). Youth suicide (WHO) was examined in order to avoid cultural issues related to age and terminal illness. Data on STDs, teen pregnancy and birth (Panchaud [I]et al[/I].; Singh and Darroch) were accepted only if the compilers concluded that they were not seriously underreported, except for the U.S. where under reporting does not exaggerate disparities with the other developed democracies because they would only close the gaps. Teen pregnancy was examined in a young age class in which marriage is infrequent. Abortion data (Panchaud [I]et al[/I].) was accepted only from those nations in which it is as approximately legal and available as in the U.S. In order to minimize age related factors, rates of dysfunction were plotted within youth cohorts when possible.[/quote]Among the results: [quote][15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows ([URL="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 2[/URL]). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies ([URL="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 3[/URL]). The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer ([URL="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 4[/URL]). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise ([URL="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 5[/URL]), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris [I]et al[/I]. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.[URL="http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openNote%28%272005-11note/n6.html%27%29"]<6>[/URL] [16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud [I]et al[/I].), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies ([URL="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 6[/URL]). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases ([URL="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 7[/URL]). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. ([URL="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 8[/URL]). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma [I]et al[/I].; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest ([URL="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figure 9[/URL]). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch [I]et al[/I]. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat more conservative (Gagnon [I]et al[/I].).[/quote]Among the discussion: [quote][18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies ([URL="http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures"]Figures 1-9[/URL]). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so. [19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.[/quote](to be continued) |
(continuation of preceding post)
Conclusion: [quote][20] The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.[/quote] |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;182650]I presume there's no obvious French candidate. Can you invent one that L'Académie française might approve?[/QUOTE]I like: "Eglise des Incrédules" (Church of unbelievers). In French "Incrédule" sounds funny.
Tony |
[QUOTE=T.Rex;182271]It is unpleasant to be defined as being againt some other idea... atheit, anti-theist, apatheist : always "theist" is there... Awful.
. . . We need another way for naming us... T.[/QUOTE] Atheism took of in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century as a widening protest movement by the people against abuse of power by the churches. In the post WWII era everything in Europe had to be reorganized and many organizations unloaded ballast from the past. And so the atheists renamed themselves to humanists. If you don't believe God is using us as his wire puppets then we must be responsible for ourselves. |
[QUOTE=__HRB__;182665]None, if you think about it.[/QUOTE]
So the whole concept of emotion is irrational? [QUOTE=__HRB__;182665]I don't think there is anything wrong with constantly reminding ourselves that we're a bunch of monkeys, some of whom might occasionally have had something which qualifies as a "good idea". But in general, using reason is still very hard for all of us, which is why our cognitive biases frequently cause large scale disasters.[/QUOTE] This seems to completely defeat the whole purpose of seeking rationality then if all we are is a bunch of monkeys. |
[quote=Primeinator;182777]So the whole concept of emotion is irrational?[/quote]
Of course. Making brains powerful enough to pipe the the vast amount of information we receive through the reasoning department doesn't have a strong enough selective advantage, so instead evolution has provided us with emotional short-cuts, based on the principle that you only have to be better than your peers, not perfect, to have an edge. There's a joke about two guys in the savanna being followed by a lion and the one guy stops to put on his running shoes. The other guy says: "Even with those shoes you won't be able to outrun the lion", and gets the response: "True, but I'll be able to outrun [I]you[/I]." [quote=Primeinator;182777]This seems to completely defeat the whole purpose of seeking rationality then if all we are is a bunch of monkeys.[/quote] We can only be as reasonable as our current hardware lets us, so to maximize our abilities we must take these limitations into consideration. After all, if we remember that our perception of reality is biased, we can use that knowledge to mitigate the adverse effects a bit. |
cheesehead,
I am puzzled by your most recent posts. Did you not notice the bias of the author? Did you not notice the unscientific manner in which statistics were used? Notice this sentence which begins section 19. "If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported." This is simply false. There are too many factors present to chalk up societal health to one factor. (Of course, the opposite is also true; which negates many of the points made.) Do you really expect mainline social scientists to correlate America's religiosity with increased homicide rates vs. say, influx of immigrants, or legality of guns, or...? The homicide rate in Mexico is huge, and some of that spills over to our country. See: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate[/url] Note that Russia's homocide rate is even larger than ours, and they are a secularist nation. Also, I'm puzzled by why the author thinks that homicide rates trump all other considerations. What about overall homicides? In that category, religious nations win quite easily (consider the massacres in post-WWII Russia). Also, I wonder why the author broke the statistics down by nation. Why not look at the percentages of the criminals themselves in the larger societal whole? Are atheists more or less likely, among themselves, to commit homicide in America than theists, among themselves? etc... In other words, the study just doesn't make sense. It finds simple correlations between things that are likely not causally connected (while ignoring related data); and tries to draw direct connections from those correlations. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182825]cheesehead,
I am puzzled by your most recent posts. Did you not notice the bias of the author? Did you not notice the unscientific manner in which statistics were used?[/quote] That I'm tempted to take your side of the argument, tells us a lot about cheesehead. [quote=Zeta-Flux;182825]Why not look at the percentages of the criminals themselves in the larger societal whole? Are atheists more or less likely, among themselves, to commit homicide in America than theists, among themselves?[/quote] This also confuses correlation and causation. Scientists, e.g. are more likely to be atheists, but also more likely to have higher incomes. [I]Sachlogik[/I] tells us that the incentive to commit a crime is lower the better off you are, and whether you're a whack-job who believes in the supernatural is comparatively insignificant. Also: beware of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox[/URL]. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182825]cheesehead,
I am puzzled by your most recent posts. Did you not notice the bias of the author? Did you not notice the unscientific manner in which statistics were used?[/quote]I fail to see, from your arguments, where the study's author is any more biased, or uses statistics in a less scientific manner, than any of the other contributors to this thread. I presented this study because I think its points are as relevant to this thread's topic as are the points that have been raised by other contributors. [quote]Notice this sentence which begins section 19. "If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported." This is simply false.[/quote]No, it's not! Are you contending that no one would argue --- indeed, has not already argued in this thread -- that belief in God is beneficial to the morality of society? Has not jasong, for instance, already given an argument similar to that? From the article: "Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population (Benson et al.; Hummer et al.; Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge)." Are you contending that any of those sentences is false? If so, can you present evidence to back up that contention? [quote]There are too many factors present to chalk up societal health to one factor.[/quote]Perhaps that's why the study doesn't do that. [quote]Do you really expect mainline social scientists to correlate America's religiosity with increased homicide rates vs. say, influx of immigrants, or legality of guns, or...?[/quote]I'm not sure of your meaning there. Please clarify. [quote]The homicide rate in Mexico is huge,[/quote]... and the level of religious belief in Mexico is ... ? [quote]Also, I'm puzzled by why the author thinks that homicide rates trump all other considerations.[/quote]Because the author has as much right to an opinion as you do? [quote]What about overall homicides? In that category, religious nations win quite easily (consider the massacres in post-WWII Russia).[/quote]Lessee ... bias ... bias ... hmmm ... why no mention of the much more recent homicides by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why no mention of homicides on September 21, 2001 by people whose motivation was religious ("God is Great" on cockpit voice recorders)? Did you notice that the study was concerned with only recent history? E.g., "Data is from the 1990s, most from the middle and latter half of the decade, or the early 2000s." If you insist that any study, in order to be valid, must go back to consider all post-WWII history, then I'll insist that it go back to the Inquisition and Crusades. [quote]Also, I wonder why the author broke the statistics down by nation.[/quote]Because that's a natural and common division used in a wide variety of contexts? [quote]Why not look at the percentages of the criminals themselves in the larger societal whole?[/quote]You're quite welcome to sponsor your own study. [quote]Are atheists more or less likely, among themselves, to commit homicide in America than theists, among themselves? etc...[/quote]You're quite welcome to sponsor your own study. Say .... why haven't religious folks already done such studies ... scientifically, that is? [quote]In other words, the study just doesn't make sense.[/quote]It would if it weren't for all your obvious biases. [quote]It finds simple correlations between things that are likely not causally connected[/quote]... "likely not", according to what reasoning? Biased-in-favor-of-religion reasoning? [quote]and tries to draw direct connections from those correlations.[/quote]So? That's what a study does. You're welcome to sponsor a study of your own, or to quote one already done. Your attack on the study I presented shows your own biases spectacularly. You seem so eager to discredit this study that you've allowed yourself to post a number of unsound arguments. I suggest counting higher next time. :-) |
[QUOTE=__HRB__;182827]This also confuses correlation and causation. Scientists, e.g. are more likely to be atheists, but also more likely to have higher incomes. [I]Sachlogik[/I] tells us that the incentive to commit a crime is lower the better off you are, and whether you're a whack-job who believes in the supernatural is comparatively insignificant.[/QUOTE]I think you misunderstood me. I was pointing out that if we are going to talk about correlations, why not pick that one. Why does the author cherry pick the ones which support his conclusions (and even jury-rig the results, by ignoring some of the sample--see the statistics for Russia, for example)?
------------------- [quote=cheesehead]I fail to see, from your arguments, where the study's author is any more biased, or uses statistics in a less scientific manner, than any of the other contributors to this thread.[/quote]First, you are committing the fallacy of "two wrongs make a right." It doesn't [i]matter[/i] how biased or unscientific other posters have been. That doesn't mean you should introduce [i]another[/i] source which does so. Second, you are committing the fallacy of "[i]ad hominem[/i]". While I gave evidence that your source is biased and used statistics incorrectly, you did not do the same with regards to the "other contributors" on this thread. You merely accused them of such. [QUOTE]I presented this study because I think its points are as relevant to this thread's topic as are the points that have been raised by other contributors.[/QUOTE]That was obvious. What isn't obvious was why you didn't notice the great deficiencies and unscientific use of statistics. [quote] No, it's not! Are you contending that no one would argue --- indeed, has not already argued in this thread -- that belief in God is beneficial to the morality of society? Has not jasong, for instance, already given an argument similar to that? From the article: "Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population (Benson et al.; Hummer et al.; Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge)." Are you contending that any of those sentences is false? If so, can you present evidence to back up that contention? [/quote] You seem to have to misunderstood my simple assertion, which was simply that the sentence I quoted from the article was false, on the face of it. You also seem to have misunderstood what the author wrote in that single sentence. Namely, that if the data concerning [i]a single nation[/i] (i.e. the U.S.) showed that they enjoyed higher rates of societal health (as defined by the author of the article) than pro-evolutionary democracies then this would support the notion that belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national culture. The fact that he buys into the idea that such data would support such a position is as ridiculous as when theists do the same. Do you really want to appeal to such a source? [QUOTE]... and the level of religious belief in Mexico is ... ?[/QUOTE]Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. I can think of at least three reasons why. 1. If it had been relevant, so would the rate in the (secular country of) Russia. And then the author's thesis would have been destroyed. 2. If the cause of the U.S. murder rate was due to Mexico's religiosity, it would still mean that religiosity [i]in the U.S.[/i] wasn't to blame for the murder rate. 3. The sample size (of one nation) is too small to make a good correlation between two factors. (Heard of "hasty generalization"?) Did you seriously not see these issues? [QUOTE]Because the author has as much right to an opinion as you do?[/QUOTE]You are committing the fallacy of "straw man". I have never asserted that the author is not entitled to his opinion. [quote]It would if it weren't for all your obvious biases.[/quote]Fallacy of ad hominem. [QUOTE]So? That's what a study does.[/QUOTE]No. A reputable study would never try to equate correlation with causation. Furthermore, a reputable study would never try to state the existence of a correlation with such a small sample size. Nor would it use definitions of "societal health" that are one-dimensional. etc... etc... [quote]Your attack on the study I presented shows your own biases spectacularly.[/quote]I have given specific scientific reasons for my dislike of the study (sample size, to give one example). You have not found fault with those reasons. Whose biases are clouding the issue? *shrug* |
HRB,
Thanks for the link to Simpson's paradox. I don't think I've ever seen that before. |
I just wanted to raise a point that which shows some of the major problems I have with theistic belief systems, mainly Judeo-Christian ones since I am most familiar with them. It all revolves around how we are supposed to "behave" according to some "moral code" because if we don't, then we will go to hell, or at least, not make it to heaven. Does god really care how or where I pray? Does god care about the words I use or the language in which I use them? Can a bad (or even evil) person recant on their deathbed and make it to heaven? Is the most good-hearted and moral human being denied entry to heaven because they weren't baptized or didn't get last rights, even if they practiced a faith throughout their lives? Does anyone really want to be a member of a religion that answers any of those questions in the affirmative? Can any of you theists understand why so many of us non-theists, atheists, and agnostics scoff at religion?
My wife I is what I would call a "theistic Catholic" (which fits most Catholics) while I consider myself an "agnostic Christian". She believes that God has an active roll in our lives and I don't believe that it is possible to know god. If it weren't for her fear that there is no afterlife I think that she would share the same beliefs that I have. Anyways she told me earlier this year about a friend who was talking to her about how they envisioned the afterlife. They envisioned it as sitting in front of god's throne giving him perpetual adoration. My wife explained to me that if that is what the afterlife has to offer, then she wouldn't want it. So much of the belief in the afterlife is what things we will receive in heaven, about the freedom to learn and grow and do the things that are not possible in our physical lifetime. My wife said that perpetual adoration of god (according to his one person) seemed to be robotic, where one has no free will. How can one enjoy life (or the after-life) if there is no free will? |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182845]HRB,
Thanks for the link to Simpson's paradox. I don't think I've ever seen that before.[/quote] You're welcome. Incidentally, SP is a good illustration that we can be dead wrong when we let our intuition and feelings dominate over our reasoning abilities. Although it isn't a true paradox (i.e. there is no contradiction after using reason), yet nevertheless even the experts see no problem in calling it a paradox, just because our initial knee-jerk mental reflex is contradicted. Here's a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases"]list of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases[/URL]. Have fun going through the list and realizing how inadequate it is to rely on feelings and emotions, when the objective is to make a reasonable decision. I'm certain that you'll find a lot of biases that you were unaware of when you made the conscious choice to believe in a god. This isn't proof that you're wrong, but it should cast doubt on the validity of your conclusion. Doubt is good because it encourages critical thought, which is a good thing in general, since it requires one to think more and feel less no matter what. P.S. A strong bias that influences my decisions is obviously [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_%28psychology%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance[/URL], which means that I tend to overcompensate for the [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behavior[/URL]. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182843]First, you are committing the fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."[/quote]I think you are confusing that aphorism with something else.
You claimed that the author was biased, and that the statistics were used in an unscientific manner. I replied that those were no more true than for other contributors to this thread. That's not making a right out of two wrongs. If you want to insist, then please state exactly what the two "wrongs" and the "right" were. (But please calm down and have someone else proofread your response first.) [quote]It doesn't [I]matter[/I] how biased or unscientific other posters have been. That doesn't mean you should introduce [I]another[/I] source which does so.[/quote]... and I didn't -- I introduced a source that was, in my opinion, more scientific and less biased than some other contributions to this thread. (And I hope no one's going to claim that by this I mean that this source is more valuable than anyone else's contribution, at least in any aspect other than bias or scientific value -- which are not by any means the only aspects that have value.) [quote]What isn't obvious was why you didn't notice the great deficiencies and unscientific use of statistics.[/quote]The supposed deficiencies and unscientific uses you purport to have shown, so far, do not exist. Explain them in greater specificity and detail than you have, please, if you want to continue to insist. (But please calm down and have someone else proofread your response first.) [quote]You seem to have to misunderstood my simple assertion, which was simply that the sentence I quoted from the article was false, on the face of it.[/quote]No, I understood your assertion perfectly: you were asserting that the sentence you quoted was false. But that assertion was false, because the quoted sentence does not have the falsity you claim it does. (It seems that the real flaw here is that you don't understand the definition of "supported".) [quote]You also seem to have misunderstood what the author wrote in that single sentence. Namely, that if the data concerning [I]a single nation[/I] (i.e. the U.S.) showed that they enjoyed higher rates of societal health (as defined by the author of the article) than pro-evolutionary democracies then this would support the notion that belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national culture.[/quote]No, I had no trouble understanding that. I'm wondering if you think "would be supported" at the end of the quoted sentence (corresponding to "would support" in your paraphrase) means "would be proven beyond any doubt". Your response seems more appropriate to the latter than to the former. At [URL]http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/support[/URL] definition 2a(3) ("to argue or vote for") seems to be the closest meaning for how "supported" is used there. Other meanings may be applicable, but "supported" does NOT mean "conclusively proven beyond doubt without needing any corroboration", so why do you seem to respond as though it did? It is possible for there to be multiple independent pieces of evidence that support a statement. Each of them supports the statement. That's all the quoted sentence is saying; it's not saying that a single piece of evidence conclusively [I]proves[/I] something or other. We might ask why you have so much trouble seeing [I]that[/I]. Consider a three-legged stool. Each leg supports the stool. Right? No leg's support is individually sufficient to do the [i]entire[/i] job of support, but that doesn't justify saying that "this leg supports the stool" is a false statement. It doesn't justify saying that someone who claims "this leg supports the stool" is being ridiculous, biased, unscientific, or untrustworthy. If someone said, "this leg is the entire and sufficient support of the stool without any need for any other leg", then that would be a different matter. [quote]The fact that he buys into the idea that such data would support such a position is as ridiculous as when theists do the same. Do you really want to appeal to such a source?[/quote]I don't mind appealing to a source that has a better grasp of the definition of the word [I]support[/I] than another source has, all else being equal. (to be continued later when I have more time) |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182843]What isn't obvious was why you didn't notice the great deficiencies and unscientific use of statistics.[/quote]
[quote=cheesehead;182856][...blah, blah, blah...][/quote] @Zeta-Flux It is pointless to use rational arguments when dealing with cheesehead, because all higher brain functions are performed by his spinal cord. The trick is to get him upset enough that he'll put you on his ignore-list, after which you're free to post unsourced claims about the number of his unique grandparents (2), which would explain the observation. |
[quote=cheesehead;182856](It seems that the real flaw here is that you don't understand the definition of "supported".)[/quote]Zeta-Flux,
Let me clarify that I'm referring to your understanding (of "supported" or "support") during the time you were composing your post. I think that when you're calmer, you'll have no difficulty in that regard. I can't think of any other plausible reason why you'd misinterpret the "would be supported" sentence so badly. (Might it help to think of "would be supported" as something like "would have a piece of evidence in its favor"?) |
[QUOTE=rogue;182850]I just wanted to raise a point that which shows some of the major problems I have with theistic belief systems, mainly Judeo-Christian ones since I am most familiar with them. It all revolves around how we are supposed to "behave" according to some "moral code" because if we don't, then we will go to hell, or at least, not make it to heaven.[/quote]I'd like to respond to this. I understand why you would have a problem with this. Before I respond though, I'd like to answer the questions you asked.
[quote]Question 1: Does god really care how or where I pray?[/quote]Yes, He does. Just as a parent who really cares whether or not their teenager communicates with them, God does care if you build a relationship with Him. On the other hand, I believe God cares more about intent of the heart than precise phrasings. I believe God wants us to "pray always", so where one prays is moot. [quote]Question 2: Does god care about the words I use or the language in which I use them?[/quote]Does a parent care what words their child uses? Of course. Respect, honor, and truth are important aspects of communication with those we love. Would a caring parent find fault with a child who made honest mistakes, or were trying their best? No. [quote]Question 3: Can a bad (or even evil) person recant on their deathbed and make it to heaven?[/quote]If they truly repent. That would include making restitution as much as possible; and we don't know what that would entail in the next life. Only God knows if someone's heart has changed. Only God knows whether if that person was allowed to live they would change their course. There is an interesting scripture in our church. Our founding prophet had a vision of heaven, and his brother, who had died before being baptized, was there. He wondered how that was possible. The Lord's answer was "I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." [quote]Question 4: Is the most good-hearted and moral human being denied entry to heaven because they weren't baptized or didn't get last rights, even if they practiced a faith throughout their lives?[/quote]According to my faith's beliefs, the answer is both yes and no (mostly no). This will take a little explaining. Heaven and hell are not big conglomerates. There are many mansions in God's kingdom, and people receive as much as they are willing. There are different glories available. Further, the works of God don't cease when we die. Those who have not heard the gospel in this world have a chance to hear it in the next, and accept it if they so desire. They can be baptized, by proxy. On the other hand, eternal life is more than just being good-hearted. It is coming to know God. And by that I mean coming to be like God. Choosing good in every action. Heaven is more than a place, it is a process. An eternal process of bettering one's self; and becoming like Christ. We are to come to "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Those who are good-hearted, but are not willing to be good in all things, will not receive the same reward. [quote]Does anyone really want to be a member of a religion that answers any of those questions in the affirmative?[/quote]It depends on what they imply. But I can understand that affirmative answers could turn one away. [quote]Can any of you theists understand why so many of us non-theists, atheists, and agnostics scoff at religion?[/quote]I can understand why one wouldn't believe certain doctrines of certain sects; and even believe them foolish. Yes. As for scoffing at religion in general; I think that is a mistake. [quote]My wife I is what I would call a "theistic Catholic" (which fits most Catholics) while I consider myself an "agnostic Christian". She believes that God has an active roll in our lives and I don't believe that it is possible to know god. If it weren't for her fear that there is no afterlife I think that she would share the same beliefs that I have. Anyways she told me earlier this year about a friend who was talking to her about how they envisioned the afterlife. They envisioned it as sitting in front of god's throne giving him perpetual adoration. My wife explained to me that if that is what the afterlife has to offer, then she wouldn't want it. So much of the belief in the afterlife is what things we will receive in heaven, about the freedom to learn and grow and do the things that are not possible in our physical lifetime. My wife said that perpetual adoration of god (according to his one person) seemed to be robotic, where one has no free will. How can one enjoy life (or the after-life) if there is no free will?[/QUOTE]We cannot. Free will is essential to joy. Furthermore, sitting at God's throne and giving praises continually does not (in my opinion) glorify God. The glory of God is intelligence. We glorify Him by being better. So, to get back to your original sentences. Moral codes of conduct are not meant to be the dividing lines by which one is given judged as deserving eternal punishment or not. Rather, they are keys to teach us how to be more godlike. The goal isn't some cloud to sit on, plucking a harp, and shouting to God how great He is. It is eternal progression. And God, as a loving Father, will give us as much light and truth as we are willing to receive. Only those who refuse to repent, who truly hate their fellowmen and wish ill on others, will be shut off from any kingdom of glory. |
Zeta-Flux,
Maybe [U]I[/U] overlooked something because of upsetness, so that I've misevaluated something you wrote. Let me try some alternatives: [quote=Zeta-Flux;182843]What isn't obvious was why you didn't notice the great deficiencies and unscientific use of statistics.[/quote]It would help if you actually explained just what those great deficiencies and unscientific uses were, instead of merely asserting that such exist. [quote]You also seem to have misunderstood what the author wrote in that single sentence. Namely, that if the data concerning [I]a single nation[/I] (i.e. the U.S.) showed that they enjoyed higher rates of societal health (as defined by the author of the article) than pro-evolutionary democracies then this would support the notion that belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national culture.[/quote]I'm wondering if your paraphrase, [I]accurate enough though it seems to me for most purposes[/I], might somehow be omitting or changing some subtle meaning so as to result in our different evaluations. Let's go back to the exact wording from the article: [quote]If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported.[/quote]... and carefully parse it. If (the data showed that (the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies) ), then (the opinion that (popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures) would be supported). Might you be saying that something in the first half is not parallel to something in the second half that is presented as though it were parallel? Perhaps we could try carefully substituting equivalent phrases to make the wording more parallel -- such as substituting "societal health (as defined by the author of the article)" for both "societal health" in the first half and "national cultures" in the second half, resulting in: If (the data showed that (the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health (as defined by the author of the article) than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies) ), then (the opinion that (popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to societal health (as defined by the author of the article)) would be supported). The idea would be to ask at each step: does this change the overall meaning of the part in which the substitution was made, or at least change it so much that the attempted clarification by use of parallel wording is outweighed by the degradation of meaning? If not, then proceed with some second substitution. If so, then backtrack and try a different substitution than the first one. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182875][...blah, blah, blah...]Our founding prophet had a vision of heaven[...blah, blah, blah...][/quote]
Even if we assume the founding prophet was honest about the vision, why do you rule out the more likely causes for such visions, such as brain tumors, sleep-deprivation, [I]delirium tremens[/I] and similar consequences of drug-abuse? Just because you see stars when you hit your head doesn't mean that aliens are teleporting your consciousness through space at superlight-speeds either. |
[QUOTE=__HRB__;182880]Even if we assume the founding prophet was honest about the vision, why do you rule out the more likely causes for such visions, such as brain tumors, sleep-deprivation, [I]delirium tremens[/I] and similar consequences of drug-abuse?[/QUOTE]Do you have reason to believe he was a drug user? Or had a history of brain tumors in the family? In other words, what makes those causes "more likely" to you? (Depending on the answer, I could see where you are coming from. But I'd like to hear the answer first.)
|
[QUOTE=cheesehead;182879]Zeta-Flux,
Maybe [u]I[/u] overlooked something because of upsetness, so that I've misevaluated something you wrote. Let me try some alternatives:[/quote] Thank you. (By the way, the italics in my previous posts to you did not represent anger. In at least one case, it was due to the fact one is supposed to italicize words in other languages. In the other cases it was for emphasis.) [quote] It would help if you actually explained just what those great deficiencies and unscientific uses were, instead of merely asserting that such exist.[/quote] 1. Hasty generalization. The author's sample size is way too small. He is making claims based on statistics for very few nations. 2. Cherry picking results. Why does the author seemingly leave out results for nations which do not support his thesis: like Russia? 3. As pointed out by HRB there is Simpson's law to consider. 4. Here is one I didn't mention previously: the author is supposedly correlating national homicide rates with national religiosity. And yet, the high homicide rates in the U.S. occur in the secular, large-population areas. These issues, and others, were brought up in my previous posts. [quote]I'm wondering if your paraphrase, [i]accurate enough though it seems to me for most purposes[/i], might somehow be omitting or changing some subtle meaning so as to result in our different evaluations. Let's go back to the exact wording from the article: ... and carefully parse it. If (the data showed that (the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies) ), then (the opinion that (popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures) would be supported). Are you saying that[/QUOTE]Yes. I'm saying that [i]that[/i] statement is false. Such evidence does not support the ensuing opinion. It does not follow. (I gave some reasons in my previous posts; including those listed above.) |
Zeta-Flux,
I've continued to modify post #116 since you started composing #119. Take another look now. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182883]2. Cherry picking results. Why does the author seemingly leave out results for nations which do not support his thesis: like Russia?[/quote]From the article's title ("Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"):
[I]Prosperous[/I] democracies. [quote]1. Hasty generalization. The author's sample size is way too small. He is making claims based on statistics for very few nations.[/quote]How many prosperous first-world democracies did he leave out? For how many prosperous second-world democracies are the same statistics on societal health (as defined ...) and religiosity available? (See paragraphs 9 and 10 of the article) What is their total of GNP and population, compared to the corresponding totals for the 18 nations (17 first-world, 1 second-world(Portugal)) included in the study? [quote]4. Here is one I didn't mention previously: the author is supposedly correlating national homicide rates with national religiosity. And yet, the high homicide rates in the U.S. occur in the secular, large-population areas.[/quote]1. Hmm ... why is it that the religiosity of Mexico is "Completely irrelevant" to [I]its[/I] homicide rate, but the religiosity of secular, large-population areas in the US _is_ relevant to [I]their[/I] homicide rates? You brought up "The homicide rate in Mexico is huge" but are oddly shy about Mexico's religiosity. Why? 2. "the author is supposedly correlating national homicide rates with national religiosity" Yes. [U]National[/U] "And yet, the high homicide rates in the U.S. occur in the secular, large-population areas." But those are all within the one nation of the United States, right? Or have the secular, large-population areas seceded? If you're going to divvy up the US, then you have to divvy up all the other nations, too, to be scientific, right? You're welcome, as always, to sponsor your own study (but be careful of discovering that the secular, large-population areas of other nations simply don't have such high homicide rates as those in the US). |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;182886][i]Prosperous[/i] democracies.[/QUOTE]I did forget that the author was limiting himself to prosperous democracies. Thus, you have shown that the claim of cherry-picking was unfounded.
However, that opens up a host of other issues. For example, it limits the sample size even further. It also opens up the study to problems such as the kidney stone treatment example at [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox[/url] (It further negates your use of Mexico's religiosity.) etc... |
[QUOTE]How many prosperous first-world democracies did he leave out?[/QUOTE]I'm talking about limited sample size in claim #1. Not leaving out any of the sample. There is a huge difference.
[QUOTE]1. Hmm ... why is it that the religiosity of Mexico is "Completely irrelevant" to its homicide rate, but the religiosity of secular, large-population areas in the US _is_ relevant to their homicide rates? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know.[/QUOTE]Ignoring the emotionality... The religiosity of large population areas, in and of itself, without further studies, IS irrelevant. My point was that the author seems to have a double standard. That double standard is evidenced by changing "countries" to "states". To make it even clearer: I was not claiming that the paper would suddenly become valid if the author changed countries into states (or include Russia and Mexico, or...). On the contrary. It stills remains invalid. [I pointed this out to HRB earlier, when he misunderstood me.] The point is, by picking the criteria in just the right way (e.g. using high population vs. low population, or limiting oneself to prosperous nations) and following the arguments of the author, one can come to a completely different conclusion. I hope this helps you understand why your statement "If you're going to divvy up the US, then you have to divvy up all the other nations, too, to be scientific, right? You're welcome, as always, to sponsor your own study." is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying. [Such studies have already been done. Go to that wiki page I linked to earlier with the homicide rates. It breaks it down by state. Compare the states by religiosity. See what hapens... Of course, such an exercise says nothing about religiosity and a statehood propensity to homicide.] |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182881]Do you have reason to believe he was a drug user?[/quote]
Hallucinations [I]are[/I] a common symptom of intoxication. Accidentally ingesting the wrong kind of fruit, e.g. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura[/URL], could have easily done the trick. [quote=Zeta-Flux;182881]Or had a history of brain tumors in the family?[/quote] Maybe less likely, but still possible. You can get a tumor without genetic predisposition. [quote=Zeta-Flux;182881]In other words, what makes those causes "more likely" to you?[/quote] Because the effects are reproducible and - more importantly - causal. A good dose of atropine -> dissociative hallucinations Brain tumor pressing on the optic nerve -> hallucinations Sleep-deprivation -> hallucinations Also, the magnitude of likelihood isn't even relevant in the greater context, since the mere possibility of other factors being responsible for the observations and not a god, makes a position size of 100% of one's bankroll in the gamble whether a god exists suboptimal. See: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion[/URL]. But, if a god in fact gave you the power of reason for a purpose, it would not only understand that you doubt its existence, the god would actually [I]expect[/I] you to doubt its existence, otherwise you wouldn't be appreciating the gift properly. P.S. [quote=Zeta-Flux;182887]Thus, you have shown that the claim of cherry-picking was unfounded.[/quote] No he hasn't. |
[QUOTE=__HRB__;182890]Because the effects are reproducible and - more importantly - causal.[/QUOTE]Okay. I'm reading you as saying that visions from God are not causal, nor reproducible, and thus not as likely as those things we can explain by science without any supernatural factors. Is this a fair assessment?
If so, I think my answer to your question would take this thread way too far astray, and have no bearing on the intent of the original quotation in its context to rogue. If you'd still like to know my answer, feel free to pm me. |
Sad News
When religion is used in place of science bad things happen, as most of us who are smart enough know.
but, this news report is particularly saddening: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32141869/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/[/url] |
HRB,
The way I meant cherry-picking was that I thought the author had only chosen certain countries, without any criteria (except that they supported his position), from which to obtain data. However, the author does explicitly state he is limited to prosperous countries. There may be other ways in which the author is cherry-picking. However, as far as I can see it, the way in which I meant it was definitely shown false by cheesehead. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182888]The religiosity of large population areas, in and of itself, without further studies, IS irrelevant. My point was that the author seems to have a double standard. That double standard is evidenced by changing "countries" to "states".[/quote]Changing "countries" to "states" where?
Again, the title is "Cross-[I]National[/I] ..." Where is the "double standard", exactly? The study consistently refers to nations and national measures. How is that a double standard????? [quote]To make it even clearer: I was not claiming that the paper would suddenly become valid if the author changed countries into states (or include Russia and Mexico, or...). On the contrary. It stills remains invalid. [I pointed this out to HRB earlier, when he misunderstood me.] The point is, by picking the criteria in just the right way (e.g. using high population vs. low population, or limiting oneself to prosperous nations) and following the arguments of the author, one can come to a completely different conclusion.[/quote]Hunh? Please give one or more examples that are consistent with the stated aim of the study (title: "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies")? "limiting oneself to prosperous nations"? In other words, you don't like this study, so you declare it invalid on the basis of its scope? [I]That[/I]'s cherry-picking -- discarding the results of one study on merely the basis of its scope. Why, exactly, does limiting the study to prosperous democracies invalidate the study [I]when all it ever claims to apply to is prosperous democracies[/I]? It doesn't claim that it applies to nonprosperous countries or nondemocracies, so where is the "invalidity" associated with limiting to prosperous democracies? If I survey folks in Milwaukee, and [I]all I ever claim is that the survey is about folks in Milwaukee[/I], does that make the survey invalid because it doesn't cover Chicago? - - Can you please give a _specific_ example of how Simpson's paradox applies (or could theoretically apply, if that's what you're claiming) to the study? [quote]I hope this helps you understand why your statement "If you're going to divvy up the US, then you have to divvy up all the other nations, too, to be scientific, right? You're welcome, as always, to sponsor your own study." is completely irrelevant[/quote]YOU wanted to shift the focus from _national_ to sub-national in the US. I just pointed out that you'd need to do the same for the other nations in the study in order to be fair! Why isn't that relevant? Why can't I point out that a change you propose in the scope of the study should be applied uniformly? Is scope uniformity irrelevant? - - Re: Mexico YOU brought up Mexico's homicide rate. Mexico is never mentioned in the article. I didn't mention it. But YOU brought up Mexico's homicide rate as relevant to our discussion. Since YOU thought Mexico was relevant, I wanted you to complete the relevance by including the religion rate. But you keep dodging. Could it be that you don't want it pointed out that over 90% of Mexicans are Christian? (From [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations[/URL] 103,265,846 Christians in Mexico as of 2007. From [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population[/URL] Mexico's population 111,305,663 as of 2009) Could it be that placing this over-90% Christianity rate next to the "huge" (your word, not mine) homicide rate in Mexico (10 per 100,000, from the link you gave) might tend to weaken your attempt to blame secularists in the US for the high (but less than Mexico's at 5.8 per 100,000) homicide rate here? |
cheesehead,
I respect you. Because of that I'm going to read the five question marks at the end of one of your sentences as a signal that I need to give the discussion some time to simmer on our brains. I'll get back to you in a day or so, if it appears that further discussion will be beneficial to us both. Best wishes, Zeta-Flux P.S. Just a small suggestion. You seem to edit your posts frequently. On a discussion such as this, in which you are mostly dialoguing with a single individual, it might be best to write them out in a word processor, and give them time until you are sure they do not need any further editing. This avoids some of the problems of cross-posting, among other issues. [And to break my own suggestion let me add: I also know how exciting it is to post back and forth! But, I've found that even giving it a little time makes discussions so much more meaningful.] |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182902]P.S. Just a small suggestion. You seem to edit your posts frequently. On a discussion such as this, in which you are mostly dialoguing with a single individual, it might be best to write them out in a word processor, and give them time until you are sure they do not need any further editing.[/quote]Okay. Will try.
|
[quote=flouran;182895]When religion is used in place of science bad things happen, as most of us who are smart enough know.
This news report is particularly saddening: [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32141869/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/[/URL][/quote] Why is it saddening to observe evolution in progress? |
[QUOTE=__HRB__;182909]Why is it saddening to observe evolution in progress?[/QUOTE]
Well I feel bad for the girl. It sucks that she had dumbshit parents who cared more about God than they did about her well-being, till the point that it put her life in mortal danger. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182897] The way I meant cherry-picking was that I thought the author had only chosen certain countries, without any criteria (except that they supported his position), from which to obtain data. However, the author does explicitly state he is limited to prosperous countries.[/quote]
No? Then let's look at the figures. [URL]http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures[/URL] If you remove the outliers USA and Portugal (or use a more robust non-parametric estimator) then correlation disappears for homicides (Figure 2). Obviously there is something about the USA and Portugal that's different, which is precisely NOT explained by how often people pray every week. IIRC the conditional probabilities of race and homicide in the USA, differ by up to a factor of 20... So, the authors did pick cherries to support their claim: any good statistician would have excluded the USA and P. Other gripes: (the more !!!!! the more ironic...) Figure 1: Call Stockholm!!!!! The more you believe in god, are less likely you are to accept evolution as a fact. Surprise!!!!!! Figure 3: Australians are totally suicidal!!! Must be the beer they drink!!!! They would be much better off if they went to church more often!!! Or less!!! Or moved to Great Britain!!! Figure 4: (under 5 mortality). Looks like believing in God kills your babies, doesn't it? Well, as soon as you adjust for poverty, then that correlation disappears, too. Jackpot: Figure 8: totally positive correlation between belief in god and abortions!! Man, those religious chicks really sure like getting those abortions!!!!!!!! Bonus!!! Bonus!!! Bonus!!! Figure 9 (teenage pregnancies):Those religious chicks really like getting laid, too!!!! No wonder they're getting all those abortions!!!!<shift>1!!! Conclusion: The study is useless. Thank cheesehead for wasting everybody's time. |
[quote=flouran;182911]Well I feel bad for the girl.[/quote]
Save your empathy for the ones with smart parents, who do everything to discover new tricks, which improves the odds for everybody, but who's child still doesn't make it to adulthood. [quote=flouran;182911]It sucks that she had dumbshit parents who cared more about God than they did about her well-being, till the point that it put her life in mortal danger.[/quote] Unfortunately, stupidity is hereditary. That the child wouldn't have been a Darwinian dud like her parents is wishful thinking. And as there is currently no shortage of human life: good riddance! |
Folks,
Let me point out a certain commonality in recent accusations that the article I cited was biased, deficient, misused statistics, "cherry-picked" data by not including certain other countries, used inappropriate divisions (nations, instead of smaller units such as regions or states), "cherry-picked" data by omitting events in the more distant past, and used a sample size that was "too small". Each of those accusations could have been avoided, I think, by carefully reading the article's title and other statements of scope. One of the reasons I had such a hard time understanding the accusations is that I assumed, at first, that the accuser had done so. If you're not used to reading scientific articles, let me give you a couple of hints: 1. Carefully read the title. 2. Carefully read the paragraphs that describe the scope of the article. A scientific presentation needs to define its scope and stick to it. That's one of the ways that science avoids making errors: by adhering to well-defined bounds when making statements. That isn't to say that wondering about a wide variety of things, letting ones imagination go free, and so forth is unscientific. Those things are fine, even essential, for getting inspirations and making serendipitous discoveries. But when it comes time to present ones results or draw conclusions, one needs to define the bounds (scope) within which those results or conclusions are valid. To criticize a scientific study/article on the grounds that it didn't go beyond its stated scope is to either (a) misunderstand how science avoids errors by not doing so, or (b) have been careless about noting the scope in the first place. |
[quote=cheesehead;182954][...blah, blah, blah...]
If you're not used to reading scientific articles, let me give you a couple of hints: [...blah, blah, blah...] [/quote] Do not take advice from cheesehead's spinal cord. A quick google tells us that the author is infamous enough to have generated a wikipedia entry:[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul#Religion"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul#Religion[/URL] [quote=wikipedia]Paul authored a paper in 2005 entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look".[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul#cite_note-1"][2][/URL] He states in the introduction that the paper is "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health".[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul#cite_note-2"][3][/URL] This paper has been criticized on statistical grounds, for conceptual ambiguity , its indirect measure of "religiosity" (the author's term) and its "chi-by-eye" interpretation of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scatterplot"]scatterplots[/URL] rather than quantified measures. Summing up in a published article in the same journal, Moreno-Riaño, Smith, and Mach from [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedarville_University"]Cedarville University[/URL] wrote that "[Paul's] methodological problems do not allow for any conclusive statement to be advanced regarding the various hypotheses Paul seeks to demonstrate or falsify."[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul#cite_note-3"][4][/URL] At the time the paper was published, Paul announced plans to write a book on the subject, claiming that the findings are strong enough to justify further study.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul#cite_note-4"][5][/URL] Gary F. Jensen of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_University"]Vanderbilt University[/URL] is one of the scientists who criticizes the methods used by Paul, including that "Paul’s analysis generates the 'desired results' by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion". In a response [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul#cite_note-5"][6][/URL] to the study by Paul, he builds on and refines Paul's analysis. His conclusion, that focus only in the crime of homicide, is that there is a correlation (and perhaps a causal relationship) of higher homicide rates, not with Christianity, but with [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism"]dualistic[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian"]Christian[/URL] beliefs, something Jensen defines as the strong belief in all of the following : God, heaven, devil and hell. Excerpt: "A multiple regression analysis reveals a complex relationship with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it."[/quote] The Paul should stick to painting pretty pictures of dinosaurs but leave the thinking to the experts. |
cheesehead,
I think I've found a way to engage you, and avoid much of the emotional baggage. I've written a little quiz, to make sure we are on the same page. Having written numerous quizzes in the past, and knowing that it is easy to make mistakes, or misinterpret the questions, or even for the teacher to write bad questions, I won't read too deeply into your answers. They are only meant to provide a baseline from which to go from. Half of the quiz is true/false. Go ahead and just answer true or false. If you feel your answer needs explanation, or you wish to explain your reading of the question, feel free to do so after answering true or false. Here we go: Part A True/false. Q A1: If A and B are strongly (positively) correlated then A causes B. Q A2: If A is strongly correlated to B, then B is strongly correlated to A. Q A3: If A is strongly correlated to B, and B is strongly correlated to C, then A is strongly correlated to C. Q A4: If A is strongly correlated to B, one cannot demonstrate that causal relationships between A and B are minimal/non-existent. Q A5: If A is strongly correlated to B, then it is reasonable (without further information) to believe that A causes B. Part B Questions about the article. Q B1: What is the total sample size of prosperous nations? (I.e. what is the total number of nations under consideration) Q B2: What is the cut-off line for prosperity? Q B3: How does the sample change if we vary the cut-off line (i.e. how robust is the choice)? For example, if we change prosperity by $5,000 does the number change dramatically? Q B4: How many of the nations in the sample satisfy the author's definition of religiosity? How many are not religious? Q B5: How robust are these numbers? In other words, if we throw away the two outliers (one on each end) does that affect the break-down much? Q B6: What is the correlation coefficient? (See [url]http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/statcorr.php[/url] for the definition.) Q B7: Is this a strong positive correlation? Q B8: How robust is this number? In other words, if we throw away the biggest two outliers, does the number change much? I hope this will give us a baseline, and prove to you that I'm looking at this from a scientific perspective. Best, Zeta-Flux |
[QUOTE=tha;182768]Atheism took of in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century as a widening protest movement by the people against abuse of power by the churches. In the post WWII era everything in Europe had to be reorganized and many organizations unloaded ballast from the past. And so the atheists renamed themselves to humanists. If you don't believe God is using us as his wire puppets then we must be responsible for ourselves.[/QUOTE]
Actually, long before militant atheism became vogue, the more-common term for members of the "take nothing on faith" crowd was [url=]freethinker[/url]. And the "movement" started rather more early than that, notably in Germany. The history of the freethinker movement in the U.S. is particularly interesting, as the above Wikipage notes: [quote]Driven by the revolutions of 1848 in the German states, the 19th century saw an immigration of German freethinkers and anti-clericalists to the United States (see Forty-Eighters). In the U.S., they hoped to be able to practice their beliefs, without interference from government and church authorities.[9] Many Freethinkers settled in German immigrant strongholds, including St. Louis, Indianapolis, Wisconsin, and Texas,[9] where they founded the town of Comfort, Texas, as well as others. These groups of German Freethinkers referred to their organizations as [i]Freie Gemeinden[/i], or "free congregations."[9] The first Freie Gemeinde was established in St. Louis in 1850.[10] Others followed in Pennsylvania, California, Washington, D.C., New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, and other states.[9][11] Freethinkers tended to be liberal, espousing ideals such as racial, social, and sexual equality, and the abolition of slavery.[9] [u]Freethought in the United States began to decline in the late nineteenth century. Its anti-religious views alienated would-be sympathizers. The movement also lacked cohesive goals or beliefs[/u]. By the early twentieth century, most Freethought congregations had disbanded or joined other mainstream churches. The longest continuously operating Freethought congregation in America is the Free Congregation of Sauk County, Wisconsin, which was founded in 1852 and is still active today. It affiliated with the American Unitarian Association (now the Unitarian Universalist Association) in 1955.[12][/quote] The "lacked cohesive goals or beliefs" bit brings to mind the term "herding cats", and the fact that most of the remaining U.S. freethinker movement has been absorbed into existing faiths or church-like organizations (e.g. the Unitarian Universalists) makes me think that organized collective delusion will always have an edge over disorganized rationality. Perhaps science is the nearest thing going to the freethinker movement - if so, that would certainly put it on par with many mainstream faiths in terms of number of practitioners. I find that thought appealing, because scientific pursuit of knowledge strikes me as "productive freethinking". |
[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;183000]cheesehead,
I think I've found a way to engage you, and avoid much of the emotional baggage. I've written a little quiz, to make sure we are on the same page. Having written numerous quizzes in the past, and knowing that it is easy to make mistakes, or misinterpret the questions, or even for the teacher to write bad questions, I won't read too deeply into your answers. They are only meant to provide a baseline from which to go from. Half of the quiz is true/false. Go ahead and just answer true or false. If you feel your answer needs explanation, or you wish to explain your reading of the question, feel free to do so after answering true or false.[/quote] This may have been meant by you only for Cheesehead, but I'd like to weigh in at least on Part A of the quiz: [quote]Here we go: Part A True/false. Q A1: If A and B are strongly (positively) correlated then A causes B.[/quote] False, because one could equally well say "...then B causes A", and in situations where there is a clear chain of cause and effect, only one statement can be (which is not to say "is") true. [quote]Q A2: If A is strongly correlated to B, then B is strongly correlated to A.[/quote] True; this follows from the symmetry in its 2 arguments of the statistical definition of correlation. [quote]Q A3: If A is strongly correlated to B, and B is strongly correlated to C, then A is strongly correlated to C.[/quote] True, with the caveat that A and C could be more or less strongly correlated than (A and B) and (B and C) are, so one cannot use a sharp cutoff for "strongly correlated" and always have the statement be true. (E.g. if one sets a corr. coefficient of 0.9 as demarcating "strong", and it happens that e.g. corr(A,B) = 0.92 and corr(B,C) = 0.91 but corr(A,C) = 0.88). [quote]Q A4: If A is strongly correlated to B, one cannot demonstrate that causal relationships between A and B are minimal/non-existent.[/quote] I'm inclined to argue "False", but need to think about this a bit more, since it seems to depend on "standard of proof". For example, the stock market rally that began in early March is strongly correlated with a rise in average daily temperature in the Northern Hemisphere. I would argue that (based on pre-March temperature trends and what is likely to happen as we move into Fall) that this is mere coincidence, but perhaps spring indeed tends to bring a rise in northern-hemisphere investor optimism, so it's merely a case of the general correlation (looking e.g. at past years) being weaker than this year's. [quote]Q A5: If A is strongly correlated to B, then it is reasonable (without further information) to believe that A causes B.[/QUOTE] False, again based (a) on the interchangeability of A and B in the correlation but not in any chain of cause and effect, and (b) on the fact that there can be statistical correlation of A and B without any plausible mechanism by which A and B could be causally related. Note that (b) is in fact a scientific statement, since in many religions, "God can do whatever He wants", so any correlation, no matter how factually spurious, can be ascribed to "God's will". |
[quote=ewmayer;183005]The "lacked cohesive goals or beliefs" bit brings to mind the term "herding cats", and the fact that most of the remaining U.S. freethinker movement has been absorbed into existing faiths or church-like organizations (e.g. the Unitarian Universalists) makes me think that organized collective delusion will always have an edge over disorganized rationality.[/quote]
I beg to differ. Collective delusion will necessarily be some sort of average, so you get a large bias, whereas disorganized rationality will have a large variance. I don't see any reason to assume ex ante, that the trade-off is in favor of a larger bias. If we look at the evolutionary trajectory, we can actually surmise that a larger variance has the edge over a larger bias, since there is a strong tendency for open societies (which allow disorganized free-thinkers and disorganized, i.e. unregulated, free-markets) to wipe the floor with all others. |
ewmayer,
Thanks for taking the quiz. As you are not cheesehead, none of the caveats I gave him are applicable, so I'm now going to score your answers. :) Q A1: Good answer, except that both A causes B and B causes A could both be true (as they might represent non-unique instances). In other words, A could cause B, which then causes A to happen again, which... Q A2: Ditto. Q A3: I think the answer is false. But this was the one question (in the true/false) where I wasn't really sure what answer is right. Let me give a situation that demonstrates the issue, as I see it. You might find some problem with it. Suppose we want to see if being named Joe is correlated with liking peanut butter sandwiches. We find that it is (for sake of argument)! Those named Joe are much more likely to enjoy peanut butter sandwiches than those who aren't (mostly because it is an American food, and the number of non-Americans skews the result). We then check whether having the last name of Johnson is correlated with liking peanut butter sandwiches. It turns out it is again! But is having the first name of Joe highly correlated with having the last name of Johnson? I'd have to work through the math to figure it out. (It might be the case that the large sample size negates the positive connection between being named Joe and liking pbs's. But intuitively, it seems to make sense so far...) Q A4: I'd say false also, at least in the context of scientific methods. You can do additional experiments, showing that the given correlation is a function of some hidden variable; which when accounted for removes any noticeable correlation. Q A5: Good answer. |
Senseless But Interesting Religious Customs...
Example of a religious custom which, while useless in a practical sense, might at least be enjoyable to watch (though I hope sufficient rest and refreshment breaks are included for the plowers):
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE56M3G020090723]Naked girls plow fields for rain[/url] [quote]PATNA, India (Reuters) - Farmers in an eastern Indian state have asked their unmarried daughters to plow parched fields naked in a bid to embarrass the weather gods to bring some badly needed monsoon rain, officials said on Thursday. Witnesses said the naked girls in Bihar state plowed the fields and chanted ancient hymns after sunset to invoke the gods. They said elderly village women helped the girls drag the plows. "They (villagers) believe their acts would get the weather gods badly embarrassed, who in turn would ensure bumper crops by sending rains," Upendra Kumar, a village council official, said from Bihar's remote Banke Bazaar town. [u] "This is the most trusted social custom in the area and the villagers have vowed to continue this practice until it rains very heavily." [/u] India this year suffered its worst start to the vital monsoon rains in eight decades, causing drought in some states.[/quote] [i]My Comment:[/i] Note the self-fulfilling nature of the custom - No matter how long it takes (assuming it's not decades) you continue to have the naked girls plow the fields. Then when it finally does rain, "look - it worked!" (The snark in me would like to add, "better hope the rain gods don`t have lecherous tendencies.") |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;183023]"better hope the rain gods don`t have lecherous tendencies."[/QUOTE]
Which brings to mind an intriguing question: what would a lecherous god's optimal strategy be, to maximize the "viewing time"? :smile: |
[QUOTE=ewmayer;183023]
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE56M3G020090723]Naked girls plow fields for rain[/url][/QUOTE] Ah yes, I heard about it on the Tonight Show with Conan O' Brien. Haha, he said, "When the farmers were asked if it would work, they responded, 'Who cares!'" |
I tried working out a specific example for Q A3. We have a sample size of 100 people, one named Joe, another last-named Johnson (who both like PB) and the other 98 not named Joe or Johnson and who hate PB.
It does seems to hold up, if my math was right. I got .71 correlation for two of them, and .01 for the last pair! |
[QUOTE=flouran;183032]Ah yes, I heard about it on the Tonight Show with Conan O' Brien. Haha, he said, "When the farmers were asked if it would work, they responded, 'Who cares!'"[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there was much beating of, um, swords into plowshares going on. |
Going back to one particular point (while I work on the quiz):
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182825]Also, I'm puzzled by why the author thinks that homicide rates trump all other considerations.[/quote]When I first read that statement, I was puzzled, too. Hadn't you read the part of the article that explained that? What were you getting at? So I threw in a flippant[quote=cheesehead;182832]Because the author has as much right to an opinion as you do?[/quote]You responded: [quote=Zeta-Flux;182843]You are committing the fallacy of "straw man". I have never asserted that the author is not entitled to his opinion.[/quote]But I never claimed that you [I]had[/I] asserted that the author is not entitled to his opinion, so what was the point of your "denial"? Where was my supposed fallacy? I simply [I]asked you[/I] whether "Because the author has as much right to an opinion as you do" might be a sufficient explanation to resolve your puzzlement. You could have responded, "No, I don't think that's it" or "Okay", for example, but denying that you ever asserted that the author is not entitled to his opinion is a [I]non sequitur[/I]. I raised no straw-man, but your denial of an accusation that never existed is strawmannish in itself. Now, let's go back to your original statement: [quote=Zeta-Flux;182825]Also, I'm puzzled by why the author thinks that homicide rates trump all other considerations.[/quote]From paragraph [11] in the article: [quote]Homicide is the best indicator of societal violence because of the extremity of the act and its unique contribution to levels of societal fear, plus the relatively reliable nature of the data (Beeghley; Neapoletan).[/quote]Is that not enough of an explanation for you? Or did you simply not read the second sentence of paragraph [11] before expressing your puzzlement? |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183000]a little quiz[/quote]
BTW, I skipped reading Ernst's and your posts about the quiz (though I may have caught a few words before I realized what they were about). I'll read them after I post this. [quote]Q A1: If A and B are strongly (positively) correlated then A causes B.[/quote](I presume you're using "correlated" in the statistical sense.) Could be either true or false. By that, I mean that I can construct an example of a specific A and specifc B, for which A and B are strongly correlated and A does indeed cause B, but I can construct a different example of a specific A and specifc B, for which A and B are strongly correlated but A does not cause B. So Q A1 does not contain enough information for me to say that it is definitely true or definitely false. [quote]Q A2: If A is strongly correlated to B, then B is strongly correlated to A.[/quote]True [quote]Q A3: If A is strongly correlated to B, and B is strongly correlated to C, then A is strongly correlated to C.[/quote]Could be either true or false. [quote]Q A4: If A is strongly correlated to B, one cannot demonstrate that causal relationships between A and B are minimal/non-existent.[/quote]Could be either true or false. [quote]Q A5: If A is strongly correlated to B, then it is reasonable (without further information) to believe that A causes B.[/quote]Could be either true or false. It would depend on one's definition of "believe" and one's standards for reasonability. Also, as before, I could construct examples that go either way. [quote]Part B Questions about the article.[/quote]Before answering these questions, let me note that you seem to be [I][Edit: ,or to have been at first,][/I] under a misimpression regarding this article. It does _not_ claim that it proves anything or establishes cause and effect. From paragraph [2]: "This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health." It does not claim that the correlations it presents are definitive proof of anything. Also, note the article's subtitle: "A First Look". Not "A Definitive Conclusion". Not "What Has Been Proven". Just "A First Look". [quote]Q B1: What is the total sample size of prosperous nations? (I.e. what is the total number of nations under consideration)[/quote]Quoting from the article: p. 4, paragraph [10]: "... 1993 Environment I (Bishop) and 1998 Religion II polls conducted by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), a cross-national collaboration on social science surveys using standard methodologies that currently involves 38 nations. The last survey interviewed approximately 23,000 people in almost all (17) of the developed democracies; Portugal is also plotted as an example of a second world European democracy. Results for western and eastern Germany are combined following the regions’ populations. England is generally Great Britain excluding Northern Ireland; Holland is all of the Netherlands." p. 8, under the heading "Figures": "... 17 first world developed democracies and one second world democracy." [quote]Q B2: What is the cut-off line for prosperity?[/quote]I find none. [quote]Q B3: How does the sample change if we vary the cut-off line (i.e. how robust is the choice)?[/quote]It's not going to change at all, because the limiting factor is the availability of ISSP survey data for 17 developed democracies. So, robustness of choice of prosperity cut-off line doesn't even make sense. [quote]For example, if we change prosperity by $5,000 does the number change dramatically?[/quote]Are you and I reading the same article? [quote]Q B4: How many of the nations in the sample satisfy the author's definition of religiosity?[/quote]Religiosity is a measured rate, not a yes/no characteristic. All of the nations in the article have a measured rate of religiosity. [quote]How many are not religious?[/quote]Meaningless question. The nations are not characterized as religious/not-religious. They have measured rates of religiosity. [quote]Q B5: How robust are these numbers?[/quote]Which numbers? [quote]In other words, if we throw away the two outliers (one on each end) does that affect the break-down much?[/quote]Which break-down? How much is "much"? Outliers in what respect? Why would one outlier on each end be thrown away, anyhow? [quote]Q B6: What is the correlation coefficient? (See [URL]http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/statcorr.php[/URL] for the definition.)[/quote]Correlation coefficient of what? Using which correlation method? [quote]Q B7: Is this a strong positive correlation?[/quote]Is _what_ a strong positive correlation? [quote]Q B8: How robust is this number?[/quote]How robust is _which_ number? [quote]In other words, if we throw away the biggest two outliers, does the number change much?[/quote]"Biggest" in what respect? Outliers in what respect? Which number are you referring to? [quote]I hope this will give us a baseline, and prove to you that I'm looking at this from a scientific perspective.[/quote]The wording of questions in section B indicates to me that: (1) your idea of a scientific perspective seems quite different from mine, and (2) you have apparently not read, or have forgotten, certain parts of the article that either (a) have the answers to some of your questions, rendering the questions useless, or (b) would have informed you that certain of your questions don't make sense. |
cheesehead,
After reading your answers, I think I now have a better understanding of your communication style and reading skills. For example, most people when reading a True/False question of the form "If A then B" which can be true in specific cases, but is not a universally true statement, would answer false (as both ewmayer and I did). That is not to say your answer is wrong. In fact, it is not. You made it clear that, technically speaking, there are missing quantifiers. The question should have been phrased with those quantifiers, making it a universal statement about ALL A and B. It's just that most people automatically read those quantifiers into the question. Similarly, when I was talking about "religiosity" and asked how many of the 18 nations were religious; most people would have read that as "which nations scored above a 50% on the scale being used." You did not. However, what makes it difficult to communicate with you is not that you read things in ways I do not expect or which I feel are too strict. Rather, it is the conclusions you come to after those readings. You seem to disparage my intelligence. That, I'm afraid, is the kicker. I do not really enjoy communicating with those who do that; or whom I perceive (whether rightly or wrongly) are doing that. So, as I read your responses, I can see where you have misunderstood what I've written. I can see how those misunderstandings have led you to your response. But I also see that you are not reading me charitably; and that this pattern will continue. That as I try to explain myself, we will get nowhere, for you will continue to misunderstand my points. This may be laziness on my part, in not being able to make all of my statements so clear that they make all the hidden quantifiers explicit, but so be it. I think this is evidenced above by your response concerning your "flippant" (to use your own word) comment. It completely misread my intent. I wish you well. Cheers, Zeta-Flux |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183132]After reading your answers, I think I now have a better understanding of your communication style and reading skills. For example, most people when reading a True/False question of the form "If A then B" which can be true in specific cases, but is not a universally true statement, would answer false (as both ewmayer and I did). That is not to say your answer is wrong. In fact, it is not. You made it clear that, technically speaking, there are missing quantifiers.[/quote]
Really? Consider the statement: The number of people working McDonald's Restaurants and the number of flops the fastest computer has are correlated, therefore employing more people at McDonald's will make the fastest computer go faster. According to cheesehead this statement could be either true or false, which illustrates that the reasoning abilities of a spinal cord are severely limited. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183132]You seem to disparage my intelligence.[/quote]I'm sorry you took it that way. May I request a reconsideration?
I don't equate a difference in perspective to a difference in intelligence. It's just a difference in perspective. Neither do having read or not read, or remembering or not remembering something in an article equate to intelligence! I tried to be very specific; I didn't say anything about intelligence. Earlier I characterized some failures to read correctly as "careless". I didn't write "stupid" or "dumb" or "unintelligent"; I wrote "careless". [quote]I do not really enjoy communicating with those who do that; or whom I perceive (whether rightly or wrongly) are doing that. So, as I read your responses, I can see where you have misunderstood what I've written.[/quote]Do you also see where I've made efforts to correct misunderstandings? [quote]But I also see that you are not reading me charitably[/quote]Your first characterization of the article certainly wasn't charitable, and it took a while to lighten up later. Characterizing my flippancy as a straw man fallacy wasn't too charitable, either. But note that after I explained my objection to that characterization, I went on to show a better response that I could have made instead of the flippancy. [quote]That as I try to explain myself, we will get nowhere, for you will continue to misunderstand my points.[/quote]... except, of course, where I correctly understand your points, especially after you correct my misunderstandings. [quote]This may be laziness on my part, in not being able to make all of my statements so clear that they make all the hidden quantifiers explicit, but so be it.[/quote]I don't make all my statements clear enough to make all hidden quantifiers explicit, either. But I'm willing to post clarifications whenever I realize that (there are examples above!) or have it pointed out to me. [quote]I think this is evidenced above by your response concerning your "flippant" (to use your own word) comment. It completely misread my intent.[/quote]Are you claiming that I misread the intent of: "You are committing the fallacy of "straw man". I have never asserted that the author is not entitled to his opinion." ? Are you claiming that you did not intend to accuse me of committing the fallacy of "straw man"? Are you claiming that you did not intend to deny asserting something? I grant that it's quite possible that your intent differed from what I perceived, but I can't read your mind; just the words, which seemed pretty clear ("You are committing ... I have never asserted ...") in this instance. If you want to issue an amendment to those words because they fail to properly convey the intent you had in mind when you posted them (I've done that, too), then please do so -- but I can't know it until you do it. What, please, was the intent I misread? |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183179]Characterizing my flippancy as a straw man fallacy wasn't too charitable, either.[/QUOTE]Is it more or less charitable to suppose, [i]a priori[/i], that you were being flippant? As I hadn't read your comment as being flippant, how might I have interpreted your meaning? etc...
|
[QUOTE]May I request a reconsideration?[/QUOTE]Okay. I reconsidered. Here is a re-written quiz.
Part C: Q C1: What is the total sample size of prosperous nations? (I.e. what is the total number of nations under consideration) Answer from last time: 17 or 18. Q C2: What is the cut-off line for prosperity? Answer: Unknown. Q C3: How does the sample [i]size[/i] change if we vary the cut-off line (i.e. how robust is the choice)? For example, if we change prosperity by $5,000 does the number [i]of nations[/i] change dramatically? Due to your answer to C2, I think you will have to answer "unknown." But then again, maybe it is still a poorly worded question from your point-of-view. Q C4: How many of the nations in the sample [i]are over 50% believers[/i]? How many are under? Q C5: If we drop the two nations which are the most extreme in terms of being believers/non-believers, does it change the answers to C4 much? Q C6: What is the correlation coefficient between [i]homicide rate and religiosity[/i]? Q C7: Is this a strong positive correlation? Q C8: How robust is this correlation? In other words, if we throw away the two extremes (say, with respect to religiosity), does the correlation change much? |
In the county I currently call home, churches are the only establishments allowed by law to serve alcohol (wine) before noon on Sundays. It's a good thing... that the Methodists practice open Communion.
|
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183193]Is it more or less charitable to suppose, [I]a priori[/I], that you were being flippant?[/quote]
You didn't have to suppose I was being flippant, but doing so would have been considerably more charitable that supposing that I'd committed a straw man fallacy. There were alternative suppositions that also would have been more charitable, such as supposing that you needed to ask for clarification rather than make an accusation of fallacy. [quote]As I hadn't read your comment as being flippant, how might I have interpreted your meaning? etc...[/quote]How? As something other than a logical fallacy, or as something not clear enough to react to without clarification. |
[quote=AES;183229]In the county I currently call home, churches are the only establishments allowed by law to serve alcohol (wine) before noon on Sundays. It's a good thing... that the Methodists practice open Communion.[/quote]?? When I attended a Methodist church (1950s, '60s) in the U.S., the communion liquid was always nonalcoholic grape juice. Did you mean some other denomination, are Methodists in your country "off the wagon", or is it just that they keep the grape juice unrefrigerated a bit too long before serving? :smile:
|
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183296]You didn't have to suppose I was being flippant, but doing so would have been considerably more charitable that supposing that I'd committed a straw man fallacy.[/quote]Then we differ in opinion. I believe that supposing someone is committing a fallacy is much more charitable than supposing something (negative) about their internal emotions. Fallacies are *easy* to commit, and one shouldn't be looked down on for falling into one of their traps.
[quote]There were alternative suppositions that also would have been more charitable, such as supposing that you needed to ask for clarification rather than make an accusation of fallacy.[/quote]At what point is it appropriate, in your view, to state that you believe one is committing a fallacy, rather than to ask for clarification? [quote]How? As something other than a logical fallacy, or as something not clear enough to react to without clarification.[/QUOTE]Suppose that I mistakenly believed I understood the intent. What are some possible readings in that case? |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183302]Then we differ in opinion. I believe that supposing someone is committing a fallacy is much more charitable than supposing something (negative) about their internal emotions. Fallacies are *easy* to commit, and one shouldn't be looked down on for falling into one of their traps.[/quote]But let's look closer at what the "straw man" fallacy is.
It's an exaggeration -- a purported portrayal of someone else's idea, but distorted to seem unreasonable. Even if that's a subconscious deception, I consider it non-innocent, because it's motivated by the desire to distort, not a desire to be honest. The portrayer of a "straw man" is not quoting or paraphrasing someone else's words as accurately, or even as neutrally, as possible. I don't view that charitably. Perhaps it is easy to fall into the subconscious habit of committing "straw men", especially if one grows up among folks who habitually use it, but it's still, at heart, no more excusable than habitual easy lying or habitual easy stealing, is it? I can view the reasons for development of a habit charitably in such a case, but not the continuation of that habit once it is challenged for what it is. That it's easy to be dishonest shouldn't cause us to excuse dishonesty, or consider it charitably, should it? (There may be other reasons, such as its intent, to consider dishonesty charitably in certain circumstances -- but not its ease.) [quote]At what point is it appropriate, in your view, to state that you believe one is committing a fallacy, rather than to ask for clarification?[/quote]When you believe it, of course. (But we were previously concerned with charitableness, not appropriateness.) One can learn to modulate ones threshold of believability in this regard, so as to learn to more often ask oneself whether one correctly interprets a suspected fallacy. [quote]Suppose that I mistakenly believed I understood the intent. What are some possible readings in that case?[/quote]Whatever your possible readings are, of course. (But we were previously concerned with whether a reading was charitable, not whether it was mistaken, understood or possible.) |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183314]But let's look closer at what the "straw man" fallacy is.
It's an exaggeration -- a purported portrayal of someone else's idea, but distorted to seem unreasonable.[/quote]I disagree with this characterization of the "straw man" fallacy. One only needs to misrepresent the position. No exaggeration is necessary. [quote]Even if that's a subconscious deception, I consider it non-innocent, because it's motivated by the desire to distort, not a desire to be honest. The portrayer of a "straw man" is not quoting or paraphrasing someone else's words as accurately, or even as neutrally, as possible. I don't view that charitably. Perhaps it is easy to fall into the subconscious habit of committing "straw men", especially if one grows up among folks who habitually use it, but it's still, at heart, no more excusable than habitual easy lying or habitual easy stealing, is it? I can view the reasons for development of a habit charitably in such a case, but not the continuation of that habit once it is challenged for what it is. That it's easy to be dishonest shouldn't cause us to excuse dishonesty, or consider it charitably, should it? (There may be other reasons, such as its intent, to consider dishonesty charitably in certain circumstances -- but not its ease.)[/quote]What if the misrepresentation was not conscious nor subconscious, but merely mistaken-ness? Would you still consider that non-innocent and dishonest? If so our opinions differ. If you believe one must consciously, or subconsciously, distort the other's statement to commit the "straw man" fallacy, then we differ on the definition. [quote]When you believe it, of course. (But we were previously concerned with charitableness, not appropriateness.) One can learn to modulate ones threshold of believability in this regard, so as to learn to more often ask oneself whether one correctly interprets a suspected fallacy.[/quote]To rephrase my question: at what point is it charitable (rather than just appropriate) to state that you believe one is committing a fallacy, rather than to ask for clarification? [quote]Whatever your possible readings are, of course. (But we were previously concerned with whether a reading was charitable, not whether it was mistaken, understood or possible.)[/QUOTE]Let me clarify then. What are the possible charitable readings, given than I misunderstood the intent of your statement, but believed I completely understood the intent? Or is that impossible in your view, and a charitable reading would tell me that I'm probably wrong, and I should always ask for clarification? P.S. I'd appreciate if you could answer the questions in the quiz, to get us a little back on topic. Thanks. |
[quote=cheesehead;183300]?? When I attended a Methodist church (1950s, '60s) in the U.S., the communion liquid was always nonalcoholic grape juice. Did you mean some other denomination, are Methodists in your country "off the wagon", or is it just that they keep the grape juice unrefrigerated a bit too long before serving? :smile:[/quote]
Well, they do recognize one another when they meet in a liquor store. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183198]Okay. I reconsidered. Here is a re-written quiz.
Part C: Q C1: What is the total sample size of prosperous nations? (I.e. what is the total number of nations under consideration) Answer from last time: 17 or 18.[/quote]In paragraph [10] of the article, 17 are described as "developed democracies", and Portugal is described as a "second world democracy", with no mention of "prosperous" in either case. So I conclude that all 18 are included in the title's characterization: "prosperous democracies". [quote]Q C2: What is the cut-off line for prosperity? Answer: Unknown.[/quote]The way the phrase "prosperous democracies" is used in the article suggests to me that there is a specific definition for that term in the social science fields for which the article is intended. That is, to a professional in that area, the term has a well-defined meaning. Likewise, the use of phrases "developed democracy" and "second world democracy" suggest to me that those also have well-defined meanings to those in that field. But I could be wrong, and I don't know the formal definition anyway (a modest Google search didn't help). [quote]Q C3: How does the sample size change if we vary the cut-off line (i.e. how robust is the choice)? For example, if we change prosperity by $5,000 does the number of nations change dramatically? Due to your answer to C2, I think you will have to answer "unknown." But then again, maybe it is still a poorly worded question from your point-of-view.[/quote]Yes, unknown. It's not so much that the question is poorly worded as that there may be a formal definition of "prosperous democracy" that does not involve a particular dollar figure. Your $5,000 figure seems to implicitly assume that the prosperity in question is a per-capita or per-household average rather than a national GNP figure. However, one could replace the $5,000 by an equivalent figure proportional to GNP in that case, so that's of no consequence. But why should we change the prosperity cutoff at all? Your "robust" reason doesn't really apply here. You'd just be restricting the data to a different range of prosperity, not discarding truly anomalous data points. Perhaps it would show that the correlation coefficients differed significantly between prosperity ranges, but it wouldn't test the robustness of the coefficients over any particular range. [quote]Q C4: How many of the nations in the sample are over 50% believers? How many are under?[/quote]There are five measures of religiosity. I presume that by "believers", you are referring to the "absolutely believe in God" measure. From the upper left chart in Figure 1, it looks like two are right at the 50% mark, and one is definitely above it. The others are definitely under. [I]However[/I], there is a problem with eyeballing the article's charts without having the corresponding actual figures: Not all letters are shown on all graphs. Perhaps when two or more nations would be plotted at the same position on a graph, only one of their letters can be shown. For example, the graph I just mentioned shows only 11 letters, not 18. So we don't know where seven of the nations would be on the graph. That makes it 2 at 50%, 1 above 50%, 8 under 50%, and 7 unknown. The upper left graph of Figure 2 seems to show 17 letters. Two are at 50%, two are above 50%, 13 are under 50%, and one is unknown -- better than in Figure 1. Figure 3's upper left shows 17 also, with 1 at 50%, 1 very closely under 50%, 1 above 50%, 14 under 50%, and 1 unknown. Figures 4 and 5 may show all 18, with the counts same as Figure 3 except 2 above 50% and none unknown. [quote]Q C5: If we drop the two nations which are the most extreme in terms of being believers/non-believers, does it change the answers to C4 much?[/quote]I presume that by "the two nations which are the most extreme in terms of being believers/non-believers", you are referring to Japan and United States, judging by the same charts I used in answering C4. I question the motive for dropping the "most extreme" nations at all. The reason for dropping outliers in experimental data is that they are likely to be caused by errors in measurement that did not affect the other data points - statistical error. Furthermore, these dropping-the-outlier cases are cases in which all the measurements are of the same phenomenon or event or item, so there's no inherent reason to think they'd differ if all the measurements had been infinitely accurate and precise. That's not the case here. There really are differences between the populaces of different nations. You've introduced no evidence that the data points you want to drop are the result of measurement error. In this case, the differing numbers for different nations correspond to different realities, not different measurements of the same thing. Sure, there's some error range for each nation's number, but what you're proposing is to drop outliers with no regard to their distance from the other data points relative to error-of-measurement range, but just because of their values. It still seems to me that the only reasons you have for proposing to drop outliers in this case are that they don't fit your preferred result, and that you're mimicking the dropping of statistical outliers without having the reason for dropping that that practice requires. (Again, you've presented no evidence at all that the measurements for those nations are any less accurate than the measurements for other nations, so it can't be because of measurement error.) Sorry for the harsh words, but I've seen no reason why they are wrong. Your proposals have never mentioned any reason except for their outlying status, and that's not a good enough reason to drop them. You've never mentioned any reason to think that the numbers you want to drop are inaccurate. There's a famous case in science that illustrates bias toward an expected result. I'll quote from Richard Feynman's famous "Cargo Cult Science" speech at [url]http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm[/url] [quote]We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher. Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.[/quote]BTW, there's a separate controversy about whether Millikan's own results showed bias toward an expected result in his own discarding of many measurements -- especially since he claimed not to have discarded any measurements (but his lab notebooks show that he did). Some have explained that what he did had no significant effect on his published result for the amount of an electron's charge (values he dropped were both below and above the average), but only resulted in claiming a smaller experimental error range than was warranted. The later discovery that Millikan had a systematic error in his results because, as noted by Feynman, he used an incorrect value for air viscosity is a separate matter from bias-toward-expected-result. [quote]Q C6: What is the correlation coefficient between homicide rate and religiosity?[/quote]I presume that would be calculated from the data points in the five graphs of Figure 2. I could try measuring the positions of the plotted data points, but there'd still be the question of which method of correlation to use. Just by eyeballing, it looks like the correlation coefficient in the upper left graph of Figure 2 would be positive; for the upper right graph, positive but less than for the upper left; for the lower right graph, positive; for the lower middle graph, negative; for the lower right graph, negative. [quote]Q C7: Is this a strong positive correlation?[/quote]After noting that the sign of the coefficient in the lower middle and right graphs differs for the same relative sense of religiosity, I'd say ... define "strong" and give me the actual data numbers (not literally -- I know you don't have them) so I can calculate whether they meet your definition of "strong". [quote]Q C8: How robust is this correlation? In other words, if we throw away the two extremes (say, with respect to religiosity), does the correlation change much?[/quote]See C5 for my objection to throwing away the two extremes, in the absence of any reason to think that they're any less accurate than the other data points, or of any reason to think that they'd actually be related to robustness. |
[quote=cheesehead;183378]It still seems to me that the only reasons you have for proposing to drop outliers in this case are that they don't fit your preferred result, and that you're mimicking the dropping of statistical outliers without having the reason for dropping that that practice requires. (Again, you've presented no evidence at all that the measurements for those nations are any less accurate than the measurements for other nations, so it can't be because of measurement error.) Sorry for the harsh words, but I've seen no reason why they are wrong.[/quote]Zeta-Flux,
I invite you to present good reasons for dropping the outliers that you want to drop, to replace my harsh speculations. (You've always been free to do so, but I want to make it explicit.) Your repeated proposals to drop certain data points, but without giving any reason why their quality differs from any other data point, look ... odd. Why are the data points you want to drop inferior to any other data points in the article? You've criticized this article for unscientific use of statistics, yet you repeatedly propose your own unscientific use of data points. Why this seeming contradiction? What is the reason? Perhaps I've been uncharitable in my interpretation of your proposals to drop data points, but unless/until you present good reasons for carrying out your proposal, it's difficult to arrive at any more-charitable interpretation than that you want to shape the data to fit your own preconceptions. You've accused the author of bias ... but exactly what bias do you suspect he had? Say it straight out, please. You gave a list of four reasons for saying that the article was unscientific. I've refuted three of them, and am still waiting for detail on the Simpson's law claim. |
cheesehead,
I found your last two posts very informative. Thank your for taking the time to answer the questions on the quiz. As you (repeatedly) have asked me to provide some sense to the questions, let me do so now. Point #1: There was absolutely no reason at all for dropping the two "outliers". You are entirely correct that that would be a bad thing to do, in many ways and contexts. Even if we changed the outliers from the extremal points to those with the most variance from the mean (or some other statistical measure), it would still be a bad idea on many fronts. One doesn't simply drop data points, without a good reason to believe that the data points were due to faulty measuring. [And even then, one should repeat the measurement, after fixing the fault. etc...] So, why did I ask you to do it? To see your response, of course. I hinted at this, when I first created the quiz. In one sense, the questions had nothing to do with the paper, per se. Now, what was your response? You, yourself, characterized them as "harsh speculations." You felt justified in forming opinions about the intent of the questions, due to your understanding of certain principles of statistics. I similarly understood one simple fact: correlation does not imply causation. Yet, when I read some of the article in question, he seemed to be saying exactly that. For example, the author writes "The view of the U.S. as a ‘shining city on the hill’ to the rest of the world is falsified." For more such quotes see section 12 in [url]http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html[/url] In fact, they write "[Paul's] methodological problems do not allow for any conclusive statement to be advanced regarding the various hypotheses Paul seeks to demonstrate or falsify." Point #2: You approached the quiz with a critical eye. You looked for problems with the questions, from the outset. Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. For example, how does the author define prosperity? You give him the most charitable interpretation: prosperity must mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to; even though Paul is a freelance paleontologist. But this isn't the case. This is, in fact, one of the points brought up in [url]http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html[/url], that G. Paul is conceptually ambiguous. You similarly give him a free pass when even basic statistics are not present in the article. See [url]http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf[/url] for another response on that front; revealing further complexities. [QUOTE]You gave a list of four reasons for saying that the article was unscientific. I've refuted three of them, and am still waiting for detail on the Simpson's law claim.[/QUOTE]If you say so. Although Gary Jensen (the author of the second article I linked to) says "Paul’s analysis generates the 'desired results' by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion". Sound familiar? [BTW, I already gave details on the Simpson's law claim; I even linked to a paragraph on wiki.] |
[QUOTE]You've accused the author of bias ... but exactly what bias do you suspect he had? Say it straight out, please.[/QUOTE]I think the following quote from Jensen sums it up: "His conclusions were based on an examination of scatter-plots for a small set of nations with no attempt to consider alternative explanations nor to encompass the research in the larger body of sociological theory and research on the topic."
|
Twice I've had a post here that I composed off-line, as per good suggestion by Zeta-Flux. In each case, it looked so different on-line that I kept revising and revising and revising. So I've just replaced it with this for now.
|
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183501]Twice I've had a post here that I composed off-line, as per good suggestion by Zeta-Flux. In each case, it looked so different on-line that I kept revising and revising and revising. So I've just replaced it with this for now.[/QUOTE]
:lol: |
LOL!
Well, let me address two things you brought up (before editing them out). #1: I do realize your assessment was conditional. My word "must" was hyperbole. I apologize for the possible misreadings. #2: I now see that the phrase "even though Paul is a freelance paleontologist" does not accurately capture what I was trying to say. I would clarify, but it was such a minor point, I'd rather retract that specific phrase than spend 3 posts delving into it. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183436]I similarly understood one simple fact: correlation does not imply causation. Yet, when I read some of the article in question, he seemed to be saying exactly that.[/quote]"Connections" is not a synonym for "causation".
First (post #105), you claimed that the study "tries to draw direct connections from those correlations." I responded to that phrase (post #107), "So? That's what a study does." In post #108, you responded to that with: "No. A reputable study would never try to equate correlation with causation." But I never said that what a study does is to equate correlation with causation! When I wrote "That's what a study does", "that" referred to your words "tries to draw direct connections from those correlations". "Connection" is not a synonym of "causation"! You changed "connections" to "causation" in midstream without acknowledging the change. Your change makes it seem to the reader of post #108 in isolation that I was claiming that a reputable study equates correlation with causation and you were denying that. [quote]Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. For example, how does the author define prosperity?[/quote]You mean ... when I answered "I find none" when you asked for the article's definition of prosperity? That's passing over? What was I supposed to do -- scream and yell and shout? I said the definition of prosperity was missing! How, exactly, did that seem to pass over the question about definition of prosperity? [quote]You give him the most charitable interpretation: prosperity must mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to;[/quote]No, I said "[B]I find none[/B]." That is NOT a charitable interpretation, and so certainly not the "most charitable" interpretation. ONLY after you repeated the question ("Q C2: What is the cut-off line for prosperity?" in post #153) AND [B]acknowledged that [U]my answer on record was "Unknown"[/U][/B] did I (in post #161), trying to helpfully fill a blank, point out [I]another[/I] possibility that the article [I]suggested[/I] to me: that, in your words of paraphrase, "prosperity must mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to". Your characterization of my secondary trying-to-be-helpful guess-with-a-disclaimer ("But I could be wrong, and I don't know the formal definition anyway") as "the most charitable interpretation" is quite unfair. [quote]You similarly[/quote]"similarly"? Similar to what? [quote]give him a free pass when even basic statistics are not present in the article.[/quote]Exactly, precisely, where and how did I give the author "a free pass when even basic statistics are not present in the article"? Note that my answer to your question Q C7 including the following: "define 'strong' and give me the actual data numbers (not literally -- I know you don't have them) so I can calculate whether they meet your definition of 'strong'." "Give me the actual data numbers" is a reference to the fact that the articles has graphs, but not the data numbers for the plotted points. At no time did I ever state or imply that the article contains any data that it does not have. I have been assuming, without previously saying so, that the data numbers not in the article were given in one or more of the works listed in the bibliography on pages 11-17. Is my failure to mention that assumption the basis for your charge of "free pass" with regard to basic statistics? Is that the "similarity"? Is there some rule that I have to scream and yell and holler in order to get you not to accuse me of "giving a pass"? What fixes that idea, that I've "given a pass", so firmly in your mind that you forget that I said "I find none" and [I]you had acknowledged that[/I]? Please tell me exactly what I have to do in order for you not to accuse me of "giving a pass". [quote][BTW, I already gave details on the Simpson's law claim; I even linked to a paragraph on wiki.][/quote]Please tell us where you "already gave details". I've looked, but see none. I'm not so familiar with Simpson's law/paradox so as to be able to necessarily derive its application to the article from the wiki description. That's why I've repeatedly asked you for an example! Where, exactly, were the details you claim to have already given? Please quote them for me -- my eyesight's not as good as it used to be. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183527]"Connections" is not a synonym for "causation".
First (post #105), you claimed that the study "tries to draw direct connections from those correlations." I responded to that phrase (post #107), "So? That's what a study does." In post #108, you responded to that with: "No. A reputable study would never try to equate correlation with causation." But I never said that what a study does is to equate correlation with causation! When I wrote "That's what a study does", "that" referred to your words "tries to draw direct connections from those correlations". "Connection" is not a synonym of "causation"! You changed "connections" to "causation" in midstream without acknowledging the change. Your change makes it seem to the reader of post #108 in isolation that I was claiming that a reputable study equates correlation with causation and you were denying that.[/QUOTE]Actually, in my first post, in the first half of the sentence you just quoted, I made it clear I was talking about "causal connections." Did you just miss that? |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183547]Actually, in my first post, in the first half of the sentence you just quoted, I made it clear I was talking about "causal connections." Did you just miss that?[/quote]You're referring to:
[quote=Zeta-Flux;182825]It finds simple correlations between things that are likely not causally connected (while ignoring related data); and tries to draw direct connections from those correlations.[/quote]I didn't think that "causally connected" in the first part is the equivalent of "direct connections" in the second part. For one thing, there's the change in part-of-speech between "connected" and "connections". For another, there's the difference between "causally" modifying "connected" and "direct" modifying "connections". For another, in the first part "connected" modifies "things" (things that are connected) between which correlations are found; in the second part, "connections" is not a modifier but is what is "drawn" from "correlations". So, no, I didn't (and don't) perceive that "causally connected" in the first part implies that the "direct connections" of the second part are [I]causal[/I] connections. You certainly did [U]not[/U] make it "clear". In fact, I recall thinking that you worded it that way because you meant that the "direct connections" were [I]not necessarily causal[/I]! That's why I replied "So? That's what a study does." I would not have written that if I had thought that "direct connections" were causal, because I would not have wanted to mean that a study would necessarily draw [I]causal[/I] connections! I can easily see how you may have meant the second occurrence to be "direct causal connections" or "causal connections" and [I]thought of it that way in your mind, as evidenced by the way you wrote "I was talking about 'causal connections'" just now with quotation marks around the phrase "causal connections" even though that was [U]not[/U] an exact quote of yourself![/I]. But I don't think the words as actually written can be expected to reliably or "clear"ly give the reader the impression that you meant the "direct connections" to be "causal". Indeed, I think they suggest the opposite. |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183555]You're referring to:
I didn't think that "causally connected" in the first part is the equivalent of "direct connections" in the second part. For one thing, there's the change in part-of-speech between "connected" and "connections". For another, there's the difference between "causally" modifying "connected" and "direct" modifying "connections". For another, in the first part "connected" modifies "things" (things that are connected) between which correlations are found; in the second part, "connections" is not a modifier but is what is "drawn" from "correlations". So, no, I didn't (and don't) perceive that "causally connected" in the first part implies that the "direct connections" of the second part are [I]causal[/I] connections. You certainly did [U]not[/U] make it "clear".[/quote]Are you saying that after my clarification you are not willing to interpret the words the way I explained that I intended them? [quote]In fact, I recall thinking that you worded it that way because you meant that the "direct connections" were [I]not necessarily causal[/I]! That's why I replied "So? That's what a study does." I would not have written that if I had thought that "direct connections" were causal, because I would not have wanted to mean that a study would necessarily draw [I]causal[/I] connections! I can easily see how you may have meant the second occurrence to be "direct causal connections" or "causal connections" and [I]thought of it that way in your mind, as evidenced by the way you wrote "I was talking about 'causal connections'" just now with quotation marks around the phrase "causal connections" even though that was [U]not[/U] an exact quote of yourself![/I]. But I don't think the words as actually written can be expected to reliably or "clear"ly give the reader the impression that you meant the "direct connections" to be "causal". Indeed, I think they suggest the opposite.[/QUOTE]Then we differ in opinion. After carefully considering your reasons, I still believe my statement was clear in context. Best, Zeta-Flux |
[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;183560]
Then we differ in opinion. After carefully considering your reasons, I still believe my statement was clear in context. [/QUOTE] So after 20 some posts, you realize this now? :razz: As _HRB_ pointed out, don't waste your time arguing with cheesehead (or anyone who decides to name their head after food). Nah, I'm just kidding. I enjoyed the debate (both Zeta-flux and cheesehead made some great points). |
By the way, just to clarify, when I say I believe my meaning is clear that does not imply that it is not open to misinterpretation.
|
[quote=flouran;183561]I enjoyed the debate (both Zeta-flux and cheesehead made some great points).[/quote]
About as enjoyable and pointed as a Sci-fi Channel original movie. |
[QUOTE=__HRB__;183566]About as enjoyable and pointed as a Sci-fi Channel original movie.[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ. It was as enjoyable as watching a mound of dung dry in the Arizonian desert. :lol: |
[quote=flouran;183567]I beg to differ. It was as enjoyable as watching a mound of dung dry in the Arizonian desert. :lol:[/quote]
Are you saying you haven't seen the Sci-fi Original Movie: [I]Drying Alien Dung Mound[/I]s [I]- Killer Droppings from Outer Space[/I]? |
Hey! I liked Tremors 4!
|
[QUOTE=__HRB__;183569]Are you saying you haven't seen the Sci-fi Original Movie: [I]Drying Alien Dung Mound[/I]s [I]- Killer Droppings from Outer Space[/I]?[/QUOTE]
I guess so :blush: I shall watch it tonight ;-P |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183560]Are you saying that after my clarification you are not willing to interpret the words the way I explained that I intended them?[/quote]No, I'm saying:
your statement in post #105 did not have the "clear" meaning that you claimed in #169, but instead could [I]reasonably[/I] be read, without any torturing of words, as meaning the opposite of what you intended, that's not to say that a proper interpretation of #105 was as straightforward as a simple three-word declarative sentence, but that my interpretation of #105 was a good-faith effort to honestly discern what you intended to convey, [I]any[/I] statement is open to misinterpretation, you had not explicitly said, before now, that your post #169 was to be regarded as a clarification rather than as a claim that #105 was clear enough without any clarification, it seems now that you [I]do[/I] want your post #169 to be regarded as a clarification, so in light of your #169 clarification of #105, I withdraw my statement in post #107 ("That's what a study does") because it was based on a different interpretation than the #169 clarification, and I propose that we mutually agree that all statements arising from "That's what a study does" made since then are null and void. |
[quote=Larry;183587]No, I'm saying:
your statement in post #105 did not have the "clear" meaning that you claimed in #169, but instead could reasonably be read as meaning the opposite of what you intended,[/quote] [quote=Moe;183587]you had not explicitly said, before now, that your post #169 was to be regarded as a clarification rather than as a claim that #105 was clear enough without any clarification, it seems now that you [I]do[/I] want your post #169 to be regarded as a clarification, so[/quote] [quote=Curly;183587]in light of your #169 clarification of #105, I withdraw my statement in post #107 ("That's what a study does") because it was based on a different interpretation than the #169 clarification, and I propose that we mutually agree that all statements arising from "That's what a study does" made since then are null and void.[/quote] Priceless. |
cheesehead,
I appreciate the *sigh* in your edit bar. :) I agree that any statement can be misinterpreted. People can even honestly disagree about whether a given statement is clear. (Or what "clear" means. Or...) I believe that when that happens it is perfectly acceptable for the statement originator to state that the original meaning was clear (in his/her opinion) but then provide as much further clarification as necessary for the other party to understand. I am willing, and do, believe you gave a good-faith effort in understanding. I am gratified that we seem to understand each other on this one point, and that you retracted your statement. I am willing to reciprocate, and agree to your proposal. If this post is acceptable, I will go to the next topic you brought up but I have not responded to yet. |
[url]http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html[/url]
|
[quote=flouran;183561]cheesehead (or anyone who decides to name their head after food).[/quote][URL]http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/index.asp?action=view&term_id=9126&term_type_id=3&term_type_text=Things&letter=C[/URL]
[URL]http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/iconwisconsin/dairyland/cheeseheads.html[/URL] |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183707][URL]http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/index.asp?action=view&term_id=9126&term_type_id=3&term_type_text=Things&letter=C[/URL]
[URL]http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/iconwisconsin/dairyland/cheeseheads.html[/URL][/QUOTE] Well, obviously, I had inferred that since Wisconsin is well-known for its cheese (and your profile says you live in Wisconsin), then naturally "cheesehead" was an informal name for a resident of Wisconsin... But thanks for the links! They were pretty interesting. If you want to know the truth, when I was a kid I was obsessed with cheese. I'd always want to put it on something I ate. Then one day my mom gave me carrot juice...that didn't go down too well :lol: |
[QUOTE]You mean ... when I answered "I find none" when you asked for the article's definition of prosperity?
That's passing over? What was I supposed to do -- scream and yell and shout? I said the definition of prosperity was missing! How, exactly, did that seem to pass over the question about definition of prosperity?[/QUOTE]I didn't say you passed over the questions. I said you seemingly passed over the problems that your answers to the questions presented. |
[quote=Stan;183739]I didn't say you passed over the questions. I said you seemingly passed over the problems that your answers to the questions presented.[/quote]
[quote=Ollie;183743]Will you please specify/list the problems that my answers presented, to which you refer? (I wouldn't trust my attempt to extract what you mean.)[/quote] . |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183739]I said you seemingly passed over the problems that your answers to the questions presented.[/quote]Will [I]you[/I] please specify/list just what problems that my answers presented, to which you refer?
I thought you clearly specified one of those in a previous posting, only to find now that [I][B][U]again[/U][/B][/I] you seem to be claiming that one of your previous statements does not mean what my plain straightforward reading found as the statement's meaning. When I interpreted your statements: [quote]Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. For example, how does the author define prosperity?[/quote]... it seemed clear to me that your second sentence, beginning with "For example", was intended to present an example of the category you had just mentioned in the first sentence: "some of the glaring problems [ I ] uncovered in the article". If that's not what you intended, then what in the world DID you intend by (my uppercase): "FOR EXAMPLE, how does the author define prosperity?" ? --- Thinking that your "For example" sentence had a clear meaning, I treated "how does the author define prosperity?" as though it were [I]your example of a glaring problem I uncovered in the article[/I]. Apparently, you are now claiming that that was not what you intended to say. Can you find a way to say what you mean more clearly, (or teach me how to interpret your words in the seemingly nonstandard way that is necessary), so that you do not have to issue denials of my interpretations so often, and I do not have to accuse you of after-the-fact repurposings? (Or could you have a friend write an alternative way of expressing what you write, then include that as a footnote?) |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183747]If that's not what you intended, then what in the world DID you intend...[/QUOTE]I think I see how you read me now. Let me restate:
Point 2: You approached the quiz with a critical eye. You looked for problems with the questions, from the outset. Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. Consider [i]the following[/i]: I asked how does the author define prosperity. Your answer was to give him a very charitable interpretation: prosperity could mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to. No mention is made of the problems when an author uses an undefined term which is central to a paper. No critical eye is bent to this issue. Look at your responses to me, and tell me you were just as critical of the paper as you were with my words. |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183755]Point 2: You approached the quiz with a critical eye. You looked for problems with the questions, from the outset. Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. For example, consider the following: I asked how does the author define prosperity. Your answer was to give him a very charitable interpretation: prosperity must mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to. No mention is made of the problems when an author uses an undefined term which is central to a paper. No critical eye is bent to this issue.
Look at your responses to me, and tell me you were just as critical of the paper as you were with my words.[/quote][U]You have not yet presented any justification for treating the paper as critically as I have treated your recent words since post #105!![/U] The paper never accusing me of doing things I hadn't done. You did. The paper never accused me of failing to do things someone else thought I should have done. You did. The paper was just (from the subtitle) [quote]A First Look[/quote]. It doesn't claim to be definitive. I introduced it in this thread (in post #99) as simply: [quote=cheesehead;182737]A look at the relationship between religious belief and societal ills[/quote]That's all I editorialized about it. Saying that it was "a look" at a relationship that I thought (at that time) was relevant to this thread. A list of possible justifications for criticizing me for a noncritical attitude toward the paper, with my denials: 1. I made a great claim about the article. No. 2. I claimed it was flawless. No. 3. I claimed it was a model of perfection. No. 4. I stated, "I have meticulously examined this article, and I certify that it fulfills every ideal standard of what an article should say." No. 5. I claimed that no one else had found, or would ever find, any problem with the article. No. 6. I said, "I promise to always apply exactly the same level of criticism to any future posts in this thread as I have applied to this article." No. (For one thing, I never anticipated, at that time, being accused of oversights, or being subjected to an undisclosed test, by another participant.) - - In other words, I said nothing about the paper that justifies accusing me of a noncritical attitude. But you made that accusation anyway, without any of those potential justifications. You, in your first response (post #105), asked "Did you not notice the bias of the author? Did you not notice the unscientific manner in which statistics were used?" This implies that you did notice a bias and did notice an unscientific manner in which statistics were used -- or at least IMO that would be a standard interpretation of the wording of your questions by most native English speakers. Why did you direct those questions to [i]me[/i]? Do you think that just because I link to an article, I am contaminated by the sins of the author? Why didn't you instead direct your comments of bias and unscientific use to the author? Was it because you somehow associated, in your mind, the author's faults with me? You didn't ask, "Did you notice a bias of the author?", which carries no implied assertion that there was a bias and simply asks [U]whether[/U] I noticed one. Instead, you chose to use the form, "Did you not notice the bias of the author?", in which "[I]the[/I] bias" implies that a [I]bias definitely exists[/I] and "Did you not notice", which implies that noticing [I]the bias that definitely exists[/I] would have been the expected action, and you are questioning whether I exhibited a deficiency in that regard. So, right away you were accusing me of oversights or deficiencies. My initial response to that was, quite understandably, to defend myself from those accusations: "I fail to see, from your arguments, where the study's author is any more biased, or uses statistics in a less scientific manner, than any of the other contributors to this thread." Note that I did not even deny that I had made any oversights or exhibited any deficiencies. I simply stated that I'd not seen evidence of those based on what you'd posted so far. [I]I referenced other participants only as a casual standard for levels of bias or unscientific use of statistics, not as a straw horse.[/I] My response was less accusatory (if at all) than your previous post had been. But now you say, "You approached the quiz with a critical eye." [U]You bet your booty I did, and with good justification.[/U] You'd already accused me of failings, but had not yet shown me how those accusations were justified. Your introduction of the "quiz" seemed very suspicious in light of your just-previous accusations. So OF COURSE I "looked for problems with the questions, from the outset." Since you'd seen fit to make accusations just because I'd simply introduced something as "A look at the relationship between religious belief and societal ills", it seemed obvious to me that you were in a mood to find fault with anything I'd say!! Of course, I carefully examined the wording for verbal traps. You would have, too, if the situation were reversed -- as amply shown by your reactions to posts I've made since then. [U]Now you have the gall to try to blame ME for an adversarial atmosphere YOU introduced. [/U] You should be ashamed of yourself, and not just for that. Look what happens next: [quote]Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. For example, consider the following: I asked how does the author define prosperity. Your answer was to give him a very charitable interpretation: prosperity must mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to.[/quote][U][B]Zeta-Flux, I just finished refuting that accusation of "charitable interpretation" in post #168 !![/B][/U] [quote=cheesehead;183527]I said the definition of prosperity was missing! How, exactly, did that seem to pass over the question about definition of prosperity? . . . No, I said "[B]I find none[/B]." That is NOT a charitable interpretation, and so certainly not the "most charitable" interpretation.[/quote]Tell us all how "[B]I find none[/B]" is a very charitable interpretation. Tell us why you never mention my primary answer to the prosperity definition question, only a secondary answer that was never intended to replace the primary answer but was only a trying-to-be-helpful guess. Tell us why you drop that data point of my primary answer. Tell us why you repeat this even after my post #168. |
cheesehead, you wrote
[QUOTE]The paper never accusing me of doing things I hadn't done. You did. The paper never accused me of failing to do things someone else thought I should have done. You did.[/QUOTE]I think I see. You read my words as implying you were deficient. To you, this justified being more critical of that which I wrote. In that case, what is the point of continuing discussion? Will you not continue to read me in the light of implying you were deficient? Repeatedly, I've pointed out that when you've read my words as implying deficiency, I have not meant such. Consider our conversation on fallacies for example; you read me as implying you were a liar or dishonest. That was not the case. In any discussion, where one side disagrees with the other, is it not the case that they are implicitly implying the other side is deficient in some way? I'm sorry you read my words as a personal attack. That was not my intent. I'm further sorry if I used personal pronouns overly much. Some signs that this was not my intent are the following: (1) I didn't join the rabble rousers (whose posts you might not see if you've blocked those posters) who have continually mocked you, (2) I have repeatedly apologized when you've shown I was at fault, (3) I have granted certain aspects of your arguments have merit, etc... Have you reciprocated? Have you granted validity to any of my arguments (besides those merely explicating on my meaning)? Have you apologized? When I asked you to remove emotion from the discussion, did you do so? Have I been overly critical? Have I introduced emotionality? Have I asked questions with multiply question marks, bolded and underlines? For the most part, have my recent questions involved your internal states, or have they been questions on what you've meant? It appears that you think so (to answer just this last question). That is not my intention, and I don't really want to participate in a discussion where the other party believes it is my intent. So, anyway, I'm done for now. You clearly do not enjoy communicating with me. Why should I continue? What are you getting out of the discussion? |
Folks,
Is any participant of this thread who posts a link to an article somehow made responsible for all faults of the author? Is that why Zeta-Flux started in on [i]me[/i] about stuff the author did or didn't do? |
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183767]Folks,
Is any participant of this thread who posts a link to an article somehow made responsible for all faults of the author? Is that why Zeta-Flux started in on [i]me[/i] about stuff the author did or didn't do?[/QUOTE] cheesehead, I do not believe you are responsible for all faults of the author. Nor do I believe you are responsible for any individual fault of the author. I'm sorry if my words have implied, or have been read to imply, such. However, I'd like to see what the impressions of the other posters have been. Other posters, have I "started in on cheesehead"? Have I been unfairly critical? Best, Zeta-Flux |
[quote=Zeta-Flux;183766]I think I see. You read my words as implying you were deficient. To you, this justified being more critical of that which I wrote.[/quote]No, it was that [i]plus[/i] your not providing any good reason for implying that I was deficient. You had shown, starting with post #105, that you were making false accusations about me.
[quote]In that case, what is the point of continuing discussion?[/quote]I thought you might apologize. [quote]Will you not continue to read me in the light of implying you were deficient?[/quote]Only if you continue, for example, to repeat false accusations that I already refuted in post #168. Why don't you apologize for repeating that? [quote]Repeatedly, I've pointed out that when you've read my words as implying deficiency, I have not meant such. Consider our conversation on fallacies for example; you read me as implying you were a liar or dishonest. That was not the case.[/quote]Why don't you apologize for repeating the false accusation that I refuted in #168? [quote]In any discussion, where one side disagrees with the other, is it not the case that they are implicitly implying the other side is deficient in some way?[/quote]No, of course not! [quote]I'm sorry you read my words as a personal attack. That was not my intent.[/quote]Then why [u]do[/u] you repeat a false accusation I refuted in post #168, then after I complain about that, never bother to even mention it, much less apologize for it. Had you done so, that would show good faith. [quote]Some signs that this was not my intent are the following: (1) I didn't join the rabble rousers (whose posts you might not see if you've blocked those posters) who have continually mocked you,[/quote]Let's see: how am I supposed to notice that you have not joined in mocking that I never see because the posts are blocked? Exactly how do you expect me to give you credit for something I can't see? In my last post, however, I specifically made a big deal about post #168 and related issues -- but your response is not to even mention it. Are you going to claim you didn't see my complaint? If you would simply have apologized for repeating the false accusation I made a big deal about, that would show your good faith! If you have the good faith you claim, why oh why do you completely avoid mentioning the fals accusation I just now made a big deal about? If you are posting in good faith, why can't you make even one teeny tiny acknowledgement of something I called so prominently to your attention? That's why I don't think your motives are innocent. [quote](2) I have repeatedly apologized when you've shown I was at fault,[/quote][u]I just complained about one of your faults, but you don't even mention it!!![/u] See, what happens is that you apologize for something, [u]then prompt do something that's essentially the same -- false accusation![/u] If you are really, truly, genuinely apologetic for something (false accusation), then why oh why do you promptly do the very same thing (false accusation) -- AND THEN NOT APOLOGIZE? You don't like accusations of unintelligence -- then what [u]is[/u] your explanation? Your actions contradict your words. |
[QUOTE]I thought you might apologize.[/QUOTE]If you had ever explained to me you thought I was personally attacking you, I would have apologized. I'll do so again now. I'm sorry.
[QUOTE]Only if you continue, for example, to repeat false accusations that I already refuted in post #168. Why don't you apologize for repeating that?[/QUOTE]I'm sorry that I accused you of being charitable. I only meant it with respect to part of your answer. [QUOTE]how am I supposed to notice that you have not joined in mocking that I never see because the posts are blocked?[/QUOTE]By me pointing it out (a little late). Have you blocked HRB then? [QUOTE]Are you going to claim you didn't see my complaint? If you have the good faith you claim, why oh why do you completely avoid mentioning the fals accusation I just now made a big deal about?[/QUOTE]I saw it, but didn't realize it meant so much to you. Your posts are quite long, and it would take me quite a while to respond to each and every point. I try to focus on one aspect at a time, to keep direction to a discussion. [QUOTE][QUOTE]In any discussion, where one side disagrees with the other, is it not the case that they are implicitly implying the other side is deficient in some way?[/QUOTE]No, of course not![/QUOTE]To all: Do other posters agree with this assessment? |
| All times are UTC. The time now is 11:52. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.