I have a pretty darned good education in statistics, thank you very much, and I know what "imply" means. And it does, indeed, mean in this context that you cannot draw any conclusions about causation from correlation alone!
If you dispute that, then refute that. Explain what it really means in this context, if you believe the meaning is something else. Let's see what you think it means. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air.
"... it's pretty logical to look at a correlation and say "there is probably some sort of causation going on'."
But "some sort of causation" does not imply that there is necessarily any causal relationship between the two elements in question. You were still guilty of presuming that there is one.
By the way, you left out another possibility, which we see often enough in the real world: two completely completely separate factors, each driving what you see in in one of the elements under consideration.
"Even the most absurd correlations often have some sort of causal link."
True, but even the most "obvious" cases sometimes have none. Take cell phones and "distracted driving" accidents, for example. Studies have shown that on average, when laws against driving with cell phones were passed, accident rates did not go down. And in those areas where the laws were later repealed, the accident rates did not then go up. So even though most people think it is "obvious to the merest idiot" that cell phones cause accidents, the actual data show no causal link whatever.
Further -- and even more counter-intuitively (but it actually follows from the above) -- there is no difference in accident rates between people who hold cell phones up to their ears, and those who use hands-free devices.
So again, I say: presumption is uncalled for. Unless a causal link is shown, it can be as "obvious" or "common sense" as you like; it is still likely to be proven wrong.
"As I said, correlation does not imply causation, but it does hint very strongly that something is going on."
Yes, but "something going on" by itself is a meaningless statement. In this context, I don't see how you could meant anything except "something going on in the way of a causal link between the two". Which, as I have already stated, is an unwarranted assumption. I consider your piracy example to be razor-thin: any causal link is tenuous at best, especially when you consider that any man-caused global warming is still being debated.
"My first sentence you quoted is exactly what you told me.... "
No, it isn't. Note the word "subset", which makes all the difference.
"My second sentence draws what I perceive to be true so that I can ask the question... "
But that is my entire point. Your second question presumes that the algorithm is fed all the historical data. But that's not the way it is done.
It is not given a perfect knowledge of past decisions during the testing phase. It is only given some of the data to work from, and then tested to see how well it predicts the other data that it is not given to start with.
Therefore, it is very easy to test whether it is good at making predictions: give it only a subset of the historical data to work from, and see if it can predict any of the other cases in the historical data. If you do this enough times, using different subsets and testing against different data every time, you can get an extremely good idea indeed of how well it would do on future decisions.
Well, I'm not going to go spend $20 on Amazon to research the point you are trying to make. But I did read Holmes. And frankly, I am not impressed by his theorizing. It doesn't contradict the practical fact that judges are presumed to be bound by the principle of judicial restraint, they are taught the concept of judicial restraint in law school, and they consider themselves bound by the concept of judicial restraint.
And I have already given you one perfectly reasonable and practical reason for its existence. No "excited kid" BS.
"Those I've dealt with (including party-endorsed candidates) are more like bitter and mean conservatives than libertarians, and they are happy to have big-brother laws on the federal level, so long as it's in line with their personal opinions (like laws banning abortion on a federal level, or meddling with stem cell research)."
I realize this is not Wikipedia, but I am tempted to say [Citation Needed]. I have been involved with Libertarians for many years, and have met candidates (including the late Harry Browne), and I don't know a single one who believes the way you claim they do.
Non-defensive wars, "big-brother" laws, abortion laws (any abortion laws, pro or con, at the federal level) are all against official Libertarian party principles. Which are publicly available, by the way; just go visit lp.org. The official party platform is right there online.
Like the Republicans pretending to be Tea-Partiers, there are lots of conservatives pretending to be Libertarian, too. That doesn't mean they really are. I can see conservatives believing in the things you say, but I repeat, I don't know of a single Libertarian who does, and I know a lot of them.
"Of course it's unreasonable. But is it a search or seizure under the constitution?"
No, it's not. Plain and simple. Because "unreasonable" searches and seizures are unconstitutional. It says so in so many words.
"If the answer was obvious then we wouldn't need the Supreme Court to decide it."
That doesn't follow at all. How many courts have you seen lately making "reasonable" decisions? Agreeing with the common citizen, as opposed to commercial interests?
"Algorithms like this have to be modeled after the historical decisions that the justices decided upon. So of course they accurately 'predict' the historical decisions. "
You did not explicitly object, but here you strongly implied something that has no relationship to how these experiments are actually carried out, demonstrating ignorance of the process. Call that an "accusation" if you like, but it does have merit.
I did not say they don't create law. I said that (a) theoretically they aren't supposed to... they are supposed to simply interpret existing legislation, and (b) when they do, they are called "activist" judges.
It depends somewhat on what your definition is. Even precedent could be considered "creating law", in a sense. But not in the sense that is generally meant when referring to activist judges.
"A judge doesn't "create" law. They interpret it. Interesting idea, but the reality is they simply interpret existing law in a way that provides a favorable outcome to whatever partisan leanings they have."
Obviously you aren't familiar with the concept. Of course they aren't supposed to create law, but some do... or try to. Which is exactly why they're called "activist" judges.
"Now, as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. But it does hint pretty heavily that there is something involved."
No, it most definitely does not. You err whenever you make an assumption like that.
Note that the saying is not "correlation does not prove causation", the saying is "correlation does not imply causation". That is no accident. No conclusions, or even implications, can be drawn at all from simple correlation.
It is at least as likely that some other factor is involved. Take, for example, the fact that there are relatively few women in IT. A great many women have used that correlation to make claims of discrimination or worse. Yet study after study have consistently shown that women simply choose, early in life, not to pursue careers in IT.
So while it might seem to be common sense that this correlation means there just must be discrimination going on, in fact there is no evidence of that at all. In fact I know a lot of IT workers who would prefer that there were a more equal mix.
I find this whole comment to be an exercise in questionable conclusions based on questionable assumptions.
"The idea that judges should exercise judicial restraint only follows from a specific ideology and its particular understanding of what law is. It has no foundation in legislation or in the US Constitution. The best legal foundation for that principle is the idea of common law which, in the present day, is disputable as a significant input to the law."
Are you completely out of your mind? Our entire legal system, and yes, even the Constitution, are solidly based on the principles of common law. Without common law, we would have no legal system at all. One of the reasons many things were NOT included in the Constitution, was that they were felt to be self-evident consequences of the principles of common law.
Many of the "rights" you now enjoy are fruits of that common law system, as reflected both by tradition extending back far beyond the Constitution, and in a great many decisions by the Supreme Court.
Justices (and judges) themselves consider themselves to be bound by the tenets of judicial restraint (however bad some of them may be at exercising it), and that idea did not just come out of thin air. Our very rule of law is dependent on the principle of judicial restraint. Otherwise, you would have Roman Catholic judges "interpreting" laws according to Roman Catholic tradition, and some Muslim judges leaning toward Sharia-based interpretations of the law.
So, sorry, but you are just plain wrong about judicial restraint. While imperfect, it is an essential part of our legal system.
There is only room for one "principle" in a courtroom, and that is the principle of law. Any other "principles" the judges bring to the table have no place there, at all.
The whole point was that this demonstration showed that whatever "principles" the justices have been following, the law wasn't one of them. Or at least, hardly the most influential of them.
"The problem is that the Constitution doesn't actually tell you the answer in 99% of cases."
Nonsense.
"It doesn't say anything specifically about GPS tracking devices."
It doesn't need to. In what way would you say that tracking someone 24 hours a day, without their consent or a warrant, is "reasonable"? The fact is that it isn't reasonable. Tracking someone in this manner is NOT the same as just observing them. As one attorney put it, this kind of tracking allows police to infer all kinds of things about a citizen that are simply none of their business, such as who you do business with, who your girlfriend is, who you associate with politically, and so on.
Such tracking is, in fact, a rather outrageous intrusion into someone's private life. There is nothing at all reasonable about it.
"The whole point of the Supreme Court is interpretation. Interpretation of how a law applies to a given situation (and if it even does)."
Yes, but the idea of "interpretation" has often been applied much too loosely... to include things such as "what did the framer of this legislation really mean?" (when the actual meaning is already clear from the historical record), and "what would have the writers of this law have actually written if they were alive today?"
As you say: the license given to judges is to interpret whether and how the law applies... not to decide what the law is, or to create law from the bench. Those are matters for the legislature.
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson
"The justices are ruling on how they think the law applies, based upon their own knowledge of case law, the language of the law in question, and their belief as to the intention of that law. Impartiality is possible in application; it is much harder, if not impossible, in interpretation."
But that is part of my point: they should have no "belief" as to the intention of a law. When it comes to law, facts rule, beliefs can take a long walk off a short pier. There is no place for "belief" in a courtroom.
"Impartiality is possible in application; it is much harder, if not impossible, in interpretation."
I disagree. Some people are better at being impartial than others. It is quite obvious that the majority of the current Supreme Court just plain suck at it.
"So even selection, well, selects towards those with a certain bias depending on which party is in control of the government at the time of appointment."
I agree completely, but that is no excuse. To the extent that justices indulge in ideology or political bias when making their decisions, they aren't doing their jobs! The reason they aren't doing their jobs is irrelevant. The office calls for impartiality. The less impartial they are, the less they belong in that office.
Political opinions are a given. However, those opinions are not supposed to bias judges in their evaluation of the law: they are supposed to exercise "judicial restraint", and separate their own opinions from the legal facts.
Some people are better at that than others. I would argue that because for generations, Supreme Court justices have been appointed specifically because of their ideologies, as opposed to their legal brilliance or objectivity, that the current Supreme Court is rather terrible at it.
"So of course they accurately "predict" the historical decisions."
In tests of this nature, the way such algorithms are tested is by giving them a subset of historical data (ideally chosen randomly), then seeing if the program can predict outcomes from historical situations that were not included in the "learning" data.
That is interesting, but from your usage, it appears that you misunderstand what being an "activist" judge means. An "activist" judge is one who attempts to create law in the courtroom, as opposed to evaluating existing law. It is not a "left vs. right", "liberal vs. conservative" concept.
They already DID do that. Anonymous posted an internet message demanding the release of one of their members who had been captured by the Zetas, and they threatened to out the whole gang if he was not released.
The news was real big on reporting the story that "Anonymous has backed down on their threat against the Zetas". But what half the news stories -- maybe more -- did not say was that they only backed down AFTER their member was released.
This, after the big music companies in Canada were recently forced to pay royalties that had been on their "back burner" for years? Just who do you think is really exploiting you, anyway? Hint: it isn't teenagers who want to listen to your music first before they plunk down your money (which is what studies have shown the biggest downloaders -- not "pirates" -- do).
And that's another thing: you need to get a clue and distinguish between downloaders and actual "pirates", who, by definition, make a profit from their copies. Like your DJs. But blame them, and not everybody else.
I think most of us who are actually knowledgeable about the situation know who is missing the boat here and who is not. You've been listening to the propaganda from the very music industry that has made a practice of screwing people like you over for generations.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a pretty darned good education in statistics, thank you very much, and I know what "imply" means. And it does, indeed, mean in this context that you cannot draw any conclusions about causation from correlation alone!
If you dispute that, then refute that. Explain what it really means in this context, if you believe the meaning is something else. Let's see what you think it means. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air.
Pardon the all-bold. Something got screwed up in the formatting.
"... it's pretty logical to look at a correlation and say "there is probably some sort of causation going on'."
But "some sort of causation" does not imply that there is necessarily any causal relationship between the two elements in question. You were still guilty of presuming that there is one.
By the way, you left out another possibility, which we see often enough in the real world: two completely completely separate factors, each driving what you see in in one of the elements under consideration.
"Even the most absurd correlations often have some sort of causal link."
True, but even the most "obvious" cases sometimes have none. Take cell phones and "distracted driving" accidents, for example. Studies have shown that on average, when laws against driving with cell phones were passed, accident rates did not go down. And in those areas where the laws were later repealed, the accident rates did not then go up. So even though most people think it is "obvious to the merest idiot" that cell phones cause accidents, the actual data show no causal link whatever.
Further -- and even more counter-intuitively (but it actually follows from the above) -- there is no difference in accident rates between people who hold cell phones up to their ears, and those who use hands-free devices.
So again, I say: presumption is uncalled for. Unless a causal link is shown, it can be as "obvious" or "common sense" as you like; it is still likely to be proven wrong.
"As I said, correlation does not imply causation, but it does hint very strongly that something is going on."
Yes, but "something going on" by itself is a meaningless statement. In this context, I don't see how you could meant anything except "something going on in the way of a causal link between the two". Which, as I have already stated, is an unwarranted assumption. I consider your piracy example to be razor-thin: any causal link is tenuous at best, especially when you consider that any man-caused global warming is still being debated.
"My first sentence you quoted is exactly what you told me.... "
No, it isn't. Note the word "subset", which makes all the difference.
"My second sentence draws what I perceive to be true so that I can ask the question... "
But that is my entire point. Your second question presumes that the algorithm is fed all the historical data. But that's not the way it is done.
It is not given a perfect knowledge of past decisions during the testing phase. It is only given some of the data to work from, and then tested to see how well it predicts the other data that it is not given to start with.
Therefore, it is very easy to test whether it is good at making predictions: give it only a subset of the historical data to work from, and see if it can predict any of the other cases in the historical data. If you do this enough times, using different subsets and testing against different data every time, you can get an extremely good idea indeed of how well it would do on future decisions.
Well, I'm not going to go spend $20 on Amazon to research the point you are trying to make. But I did read Holmes. And frankly, I am not impressed by his theorizing. It doesn't contradict the practical fact that judges are presumed to be bound by the principle of judicial restraint, they are taught the concept of judicial restraint in law school, and they consider themselves bound by the concept of judicial restraint.
And I have already given you one perfectly reasonable and practical reason for its existence. No "excited kid" BS.
"Those I've dealt with (including party-endorsed candidates) are more like bitter and mean conservatives than libertarians, and they are happy to have big-brother laws on the federal level, so long as it's in line with their personal opinions (like laws banning abortion on a federal level, or meddling with stem cell research)."
I realize this is not Wikipedia, but I am tempted to say [Citation Needed]. I have been involved with Libertarians for many years, and have met candidates (including the late Harry Browne), and I don't know a single one who believes the way you claim they do.
Non-defensive wars, "big-brother" laws, abortion laws (any abortion laws, pro or con, at the federal level) are all against official Libertarian party principles. Which are publicly available, by the way; just go visit lp.org. The official party platform is right there online.
Like the Republicans pretending to be Tea-Partiers, there are lots of conservatives pretending to be Libertarian, too. That doesn't mean they really are. I can see conservatives believing in the things you say, but I repeat, I don't know of a single Libertarian who does, and I know a lot of them.
"Of course it's unreasonable. But is it a search or seizure under the constitution?"
No, it's not. Plain and simple. Because "unreasonable" searches and seizures are unconstitutional. It says so in so many words.
"If the answer was obvious then we wouldn't need the Supreme Court to decide it."
That doesn't follow at all. How many courts have you seen lately making "reasonable" decisions? Agreeing with the common citizen, as opposed to commercial interests?
"Algorithms like this have to be modeled after the historical decisions that the justices decided upon. So of course they accurately 'predict' the historical decisions. "
You did not explicitly object, but here you strongly implied something that has no relationship to how these experiments are actually carried out, demonstrating ignorance of the process. Call that an "accusation" if you like, but it does have merit.
I did not say they don't create law. I said that (a) theoretically they aren't supposed to... they are supposed to simply interpret existing legislation, and (b) when they do, they are called "activist" judges.
It depends somewhat on what your definition is. Even precedent could be considered "creating law", in a sense. But not in the sense that is generally meant when referring to activist judges.
"A judge doesn't "create" law. They interpret it. Interesting idea, but the reality is they simply interpret existing law in a way that provides a favorable outcome to whatever partisan leanings they have."
Obviously you aren't familiar with the concept. Of course they aren't supposed to create law, but some do... or try to. Which is exactly why they're called "activist" judges.
"The cure for racism is not to enshrine it into law, as affirmative action does."
Thank you. It is something of a relief to know that there is someone out there besides myself that is aware of this essential fact.
"Now, as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. But it does hint pretty heavily that there is something involved."
No, it most definitely does not. You err whenever you make an assumption like that.
Note that the saying is not "correlation does not prove causation", the saying is "correlation does not imply causation". That is no accident. No conclusions, or even implications, can be drawn at all from simple correlation.
It is at least as likely that some other factor is involved. Take, for example, the fact that there are relatively few women in IT. A great many women have used that correlation to make claims of discrimination or worse. Yet study after study have consistently shown that women simply choose, early in life, not to pursue careers in IT.
So while it might seem to be common sense that this correlation means there just must be discrimination going on, in fact there is no evidence of that at all. In fact I know a lot of IT workers who would prefer that there were a more equal mix.
"The idea that judges should exercise judicial restraint only follows from a specific ideology and its particular understanding of what law is. It has no foundation in legislation or in the US Constitution. The best legal foundation for that principle is the idea of common law which, in the present day, is disputable as a significant input to the law."
Are you completely out of your mind? Our entire legal system, and yes, even the Constitution, are solidly based on the principles of common law. Without common law, we would have no legal system at all. One of the reasons many things were NOT included in the Constitution, was that they were felt to be self-evident consequences of the principles of common law.
Many of the "rights" you now enjoy are fruits of that common law system, as reflected both by tradition extending back far beyond the Constitution, and in a great many decisions by the Supreme Court.
Justices (and judges) themselves consider themselves to be bound by the tenets of judicial restraint (however bad some of them may be at exercising it), and that idea did not just come out of thin air. Our very rule of law is dependent on the principle of judicial restraint. Otherwise, you would have Roman Catholic judges "interpreting" laws according to Roman Catholic tradition, and some Muslim judges leaning toward Sharia-based interpretations of the law.
So, sorry, but you are just plain wrong about judicial restraint. While imperfect, it is an essential part of our legal system.
Actually, you could call all three: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, glaring recent examples.
You have missed the point completely.
There is only room for one "principle" in a courtroom, and that is the principle of law. Any other "principles" the judges bring to the table have no place there, at all.
The whole point was that this demonstration showed that whatever "principles" the justices have been following, the law wasn't one of them. Or at least, hardly the most influential of them.
In what respect do you think Libertarians don't want a strict constitutionalist? I am just curious.
"The problem is that the Constitution doesn't actually tell you the answer in 99% of cases."
Nonsense.
"It doesn't say anything specifically about GPS tracking devices."
It doesn't need to. In what way would you say that tracking someone 24 hours a day, without their consent or a warrant, is "reasonable"? The fact is that it isn't reasonable. Tracking someone in this manner is NOT the same as just observing them. As one attorney put it, this kind of tracking allows police to infer all kinds of things about a citizen that are simply none of their business, such as who you do business with, who your girlfriend is, who you associate with politically, and so on.
Such tracking is, in fact, a rather outrageous intrusion into someone's private life. There is nothing at all reasonable about it.
"The whole point of the Supreme Court is interpretation. Interpretation of how a law applies to a given situation (and if it even does)."
Yes, but the idea of "interpretation" has often been applied much too loosely... to include things such as "what did the framer of this legislation really mean?" (when the actual meaning is already clear from the historical record), and "what would have the writers of this law have actually written if they were alive today?"
As you say: the license given to judges is to interpret whether and how the law applies... not to decide what the law is, or to create law from the bench. Those are matters for the legislature.
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson
"The justices are ruling on how they think the law applies, based upon their own knowledge of case law, the language of the law in question, and their belief as to the intention of that law. Impartiality is possible in application; it is much harder, if not impossible, in interpretation."
But that is part of my point: they should have no "belief" as to the intention of a law. When it comes to law, facts rule, beliefs can take a long walk off a short pier. There is no place for "belief" in a courtroom.
"Impartiality is possible in application; it is much harder, if not impossible, in interpretation."
I disagree. Some people are better at being impartial than others. It is quite obvious that the majority of the current Supreme Court just plain suck at it.
"So even selection, well, selects towards those with a certain bias depending on which party is in control of the government at the time of appointment."
I agree completely, but that is no excuse. To the extent that justices indulge in ideology or political bias when making their decisions, they aren't doing their jobs! The reason they aren't doing their jobs is irrelevant. The office calls for impartiality. The less impartial they are, the less they belong in that office.
The name "Elena Kagan" springs to mind, as a rather glaring recent example.
Political opinions are a given. However, those opinions are not supposed to bias judges in their evaluation of the law: they are supposed to exercise "judicial restraint", and separate their own opinions from the legal facts.
Some people are better at that than others. I would argue that because for generations, Supreme Court justices have been appointed specifically because of their ideologies, as opposed to their legal brilliance or objectivity, that the current Supreme Court is rather terrible at it.
"So of course they accurately "predict" the historical decisions."
In tests of this nature, the way such algorithms are tested is by giving them a subset of historical data (ideally chosen randomly), then seeing if the program can predict outcomes from historical situations that were not included in the "learning" data.
So your objection has little merit.
That is interesting, but from your usage, it appears that you misunderstand what being an "activist" judge means. An "activist" judge is one who attempts to create law in the courtroom, as opposed to evaluating existing law. It is not a "left vs. right", "liberal vs. conservative" concept.
It makes perfect sense if you insert the closing quote in the right place. It appears to have been omitted.
They already DID do that. Anonymous posted an internet message demanding the release of one of their members who had been captured by the Zetas, and they threatened to out the whole gang if he was not released.
The news was real big on reporting the story that "Anonymous has backed down on their threat against the Zetas". But what half the news stories -- maybe more -- did not say was that they only backed down AFTER their member was released.
This, after the big music companies in Canada were recently forced to pay royalties that had been on their "back burner" for years? Just who do you think is really exploiting you, anyway? Hint: it isn't teenagers who want to listen to your music first before they plunk down your money (which is what studies have shown the biggest downloaders -- not "pirates" -- do).
And that's another thing: you need to get a clue and distinguish between downloaders and actual "pirates", who, by definition, make a profit from their copies. Like your DJs. But blame them, and not everybody else.
I think most of us who are actually knowledgeable about the situation know who is missing the boat here and who is not. You've been listening to the propaganda from the very music industry that has made a practice of screwing people like you over for generations.