Is there a God?

[flouran]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Naked girls plow fields for rain

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!'"

[Zeta-Flux]

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!

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by flouran

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'm sure there was much beating of, um, swords into plowshares going on.

[cheesehead]

Going back to one particular point (while I work on the quiz):

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Also, I'm puzzled by why the author thinks that homicide rates trump all other considerations.

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

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Because the author has as much right to an opinion as you do?

You responded:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

You are committing the fallacy of "straw man". I have never asserted that the author is not entitled to his opinion.

But I never claimed that you had 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 asked you 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 non sequitur.

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:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Also, I'm puzzled by why the author thinks that homicide rates trump all other considerations.

From paragraph [11] in the article:

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).

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?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

a little quiz

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.

Q A1: If A and B are strongly (positively) correlated then A causes B.

(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.

Q A2: If A is strongly correlated to B, then B is strongly correlated to A.

True

Q A3: If A is strongly correlated to B, and B is strongly correlated to C, then A is strongly correlated to C.

Could be either true or false.

Q A4: If A is strongly correlated to B, one cannot demonstrate that causal relationships between A and B are minimal/non-existent.

Could be either true or false.

Q A5: If A is strongly correlated to B, then it is reasonable (without further information) to believe that A causes B.

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.

Part B
Questions about the article.

Before answering these questions, let me note that you seem to be [Edit: ,or to have been at first,] 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".

Q B1: What is the total sample size of prosperous nations? (I.e. what is the total number of nations under consideration)

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."

Q B2: What is the cut-off line for prosperity?

I find none.

Q B3: How does the sample change if we vary the cut-off line (i.e. how robust is the choice)?

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.

For example, if we change prosperity by $5,000 does the number change dramatically?

Are you and I reading the same article?

Q B4: How many of the nations in the sample satisfy the author's definition of religiosity?

Religiosity is a measured rate, not a yes/no characteristic. All of the nations in the article have a measured rate of religiosity.

How many are not religious?

Meaningless question. The nations are not characterized as religious/not-religious. They have measured rates of religiosity.

Q B5: How robust are these numbers?

Which numbers?

In other words, if we throw away the two outliers (one on each end) does that affect the break-down much?

Which break-down? How much is "much"? Outliers in what respect? Why would one outlier on each end be thrown away, anyhow?

Q B6: What is the correlation coefficient? (See http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/statcorr.php for the definition.)

Correlation coefficient of what? Using which correlation method?

Q B7: Is this a strong positive correlation?

Is _what_ a strong positive correlation?

Q B8: How robust is this number?

How robust is _which_ number?

In other words, if we throw away the biggest two outliers, does the number change much?

"Biggest" in what respect? Outliers in what respect? Which number are you referring to?

I hope this will give us a baseline, and prove to you that I'm looking at this from a scientific perspective.

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.

[Zeta-Flux]

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

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

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.

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.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

You seem to disparage my intelligence.

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".

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.

Do you also see where I've made efforts to correct misunderstandings?

But I also see that you are not reading me charitably

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.

That as I try to explain myself, we will get nowhere, for you will continue to misunderstand my points.

... except, of course, where I correctly understand your points, especially after you correct my misunderstandings.

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 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.

I think this is evidenced above by your response concerning your "flippant" (to use your own word) comment. It completely misread my intent.

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?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Characterizing my flippancy as a straw man fallacy wasn't too charitable, either.

Is it more or less charitable to suppose, a priori, that you were being flippant? As I hadn't read your comment as being flippant, how might I have interpreted your meaning? etc...

[Zeta-Flux]

May I request a reconsideration?

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 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.

Q C4: How many of the nations in the sample are over 50% believers? 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 homicide rate and religiosity?

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?

[AES]

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.