Is there a God?

[flouran]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

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.

[Zeta-Flux]

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.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

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.

"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.

Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. For example, how does the author define prosperity?

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?

You give him the most charitable interpretation: prosperity must mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to;

No, I said "I find none." 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 acknowledged that my answer on record was "Unknown" did I (in post #161), trying to helpfully fill a blank, point out another possibility that the article suggested 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.

You similarly

"similarly"? Similar to what?

give him a free pass when even basic statistics are not present in the article.

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 you had acknowledged that?

Please tell me exactly what I have to do in order for you not to accuse me of "giving a pass".

[BTW, I already gave details on the Simpson's law claim; I even linked to a paragraph on wiki.]

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.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

"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.

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?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

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?

You're referring to:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

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.

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 causal connections. You certainly did not make it "clear".

In fact, I recall thinking that you worded it that way because you meant that the "direct connections" were not necessarily causal! 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 causal connections!

I can easily see how you may have meant the second occurrence to be "direct causal connections" or "causal connections" and 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 not an exact quote of yourself!.

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.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

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 causal connections. You certainly did not make it "clear".

Are you saying that after my clarification you are not willing to interpret the words the way I explained that I intended them?

In fact, I recall thinking that you worded it that way because you meant that the "direct connections" were not necessarily causal! 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 causal connections!

I can easily see how you may have meant the second occurrence to be "direct causal connections" or "causal connections" and 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 not an exact quote of yourself!.

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.

Then we differ in opinion. After carefully considering your reasons, I still believe my statement was clear in context.

Best,
Zeta-Flux

[flouran]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Then we differ in opinion. After carefully considering your reasons, I still believe my statement was clear in context.

So after 20 some posts, you realize this now?
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).

[Zeta-Flux]

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.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by flouran

I enjoyed the debate (both Zeta-flux and cheesehead made some great points).

About as enjoyable and pointed as a Sci-fi Channel original movie.

[flouran]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

About as enjoyable and pointed as a Sci-fi Channel original movie.

I beg to differ. It was as enjoyable as watching a mound of dung dry in the Arizonian desert.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by flouran

I beg to differ. It was as enjoyable as watching a mound of dung dry in the Arizonian desert.

Are you saying you haven't seen the Sci-fi Original Movie: Drying Alien Dung Mounds - Killer Droppings from Outer Space?