The failing is that you'll never find a scientific theory that says a plane won't crash; science only goes as far as to explain why planes CAN work....
statistical evidence isn't a 'theory,' it merely presents probabilities, which are a useful guide as well.
Ok, I was a bit sloppy in my language. In both fields, one develops models based on underlying theories, plugs in the appropriate data and sees what the model predicts. Assuming both models are correct and complete, the failure of the statistical model to accurately predict a single occurrence is not necessarily a failure of the underlying theories; the failure of a valid scientific model to accurately predict a single occurrence does indicate a failure of the underlying theories. The difference being that complete and accurate scientific models, based on sound theories, predict what will happen every time the experiment is run. The same can not be said for statistical models. That is what I mean when I refer to scientific evidence as evidence, whereas statistical predictions, as you say, are merely useful guides. Both are a perfectly valid basis for forming opinions, decisions, what have you, but I do not see the two as equal. If you do, and accept statistical evidence as a basis for beliefs, then I guess we simply have different definitions of evidence and belief.
Neither of those kinds of evidence though will show that any kind of god exists.
I never intended to imply that either one could be used to prove the existence of a god. Although, I do find it interesting that neither one can be used to disprove the existence of a god, either. And while one certainly should not believe everything that can not be disproven (that is a whole lot of double negatives!), I think it equally absurd to claim that one should (or even can) only believe that which can be empirically proven, which is how I interpreted your statement that you only believe in things for which you have evidence.
Oh, BTW, I have indeed read Hume; as you noticed, his writing has influenced my thinking on the subject of rationality quite a bit. I also am particularly attracted to his political philosophy. I tend to find idealism of any sort dubious at best; his admittedly nebulous pragmatism at least avoids pushing my skepticism buttons.
I never suggested it wasn't reasonable to base future performance on unproved assumptions derived from previous experience. In fact, I believe I stated that it is unreasonable to attempt to never do so. My quibble was with the assertion that I tend to see people make in religious discussions that they don't form any beliefs (and by extension, act on these beliefs) based on unproven assumptions, i.e. without evidence. It is as if there are people out there that feel it somehow lends credence to their arguments to pretend to a level of abstract rationality that I doubt any human anywhere has ever obtained (I also doubt the desirability of such rationality, but that is beside the point).
This whole, "you can't be harshly skeptical of metaphysical or religious assertions while living a normal life without being a hypocrite" thing is so settled.
Whether someone is being hypocritical or not in their skepticism I generally couldn't say. However, resorting to absurd exaggerations about their own rationality in order to support their argument seldom makes me take their argument more seriously.
I guess it depends on what you mean by evidence. I think there is a big distinction between statistical evidence and scientific evidence. If I predict a plane won't crash based on scientific theories, and it crashes, we know at least one of my theories was incorrect. If I predict it won't crash based on statistical theories, and it crashes, this does not necessarily imply any of my theories were incorrect.
I don't believe in anything without evidence to show it
Inevitably, in a discussion about religion, someone will make a statement very similar to this to explain what they have against religious beliefs. And I'm not in any way suggesting the following to mean you should have any religious beliefs; I just find this statement to be as silly as most religious claims. Let me explain.
You don't believe in anything without evidence? Do you test all of your food for poison? Or do you eat it with a fatalistic attitude, "I don't know if it is poisoned or not, but I gotta eat so...". Or, do you take the completely reasonable attitude (if you think about it at all) that there are processes in place to insure publicly sold food is safe to eat, you trust that these processes have been applied to your food, and that most likely, your food is safe. Even though you hear every now and then about instances where publicly sold food was not safe, and people got sick or died from it, I doubt you still require actual evidence (and thus knowledge) that your food is safe before you eat it. Instead, you rely on a reasonable belief that your food is safe.
In fact, the reason I find claims such as "I believe nothing without evidence" to be so silly is because you really can't function in the world without forming reasonable beliefs and acting as though they were true. If you really insisted on evidence, and thus knowledge, about every little thing you trust yourself to in life, you would never fly in a plane you hadn't tested, never drive over a bridge you hadn't tested, etc. Or you are one bad-ass mo'fo'; I for one damn sure wouldn't get on a plane if I didn't believe it was operational. Fortunately for my travel plans, I don't require evidence that a plane is operational, merely a reasonable belief in the diligence of the airline that assures me their planes are operational.
My sister-in-law just graduated high school. She was a cheer leader, got poor grades, and seemed to be constantly bitching about one or another of the girls in her grade. So I assume she is pretty much the target audience for "teen fashion" crap. She LOVES those MTV "reality" drama shows. I seldom ever talk to her much beyond "Hi" and "Pass the salt", but I do overhear her conversations with my wife. It actually took me some time to be able to distinguish between her stories of petty drama that involved her and her peers and the stupid stories of petty drama that she was regurgitating from these shows. It still takes me some time to catch on that this story is real after she changes boyfriends; I tend to assume the new name is a new show, or new character (which also happens a lot, from what I gather).
So, to answer your question, I have no idea. But from what I can tell, MTV counts for at least as much in my sister-in-law's life as her actual life. Seriously. I've seen her crying over breaking up with her boyfriend, and she was less sad than the time she was crying over what turned out to be a break-up in a show.
I'm sorry to be pedantic, but you have the story and the meaning behind the phrase Sword of Damocles a bit confused. Dionysius didn't hang a sword over Damocles to demonstrate the value of life; he hung it over his throne after agreeing to allow Damocles be ruler for a day in order to demonstrate the perilousness of the throne; all Damocles could see before was the power and pleasure. Wiki linky
It's only a Sword of Damocles if you are unaware of it.
I am not sure about this, but I have never heard any sort of implication that Sword of Damocles refers to an unknown danger; merely an ever present, easily triggered danger inherent in a particular position or situation. For instance, Damocles himself became aware of his danger during the course of the meal.
The difference between welfare checks and payday checks is that all welfare checks do come out at the same time, so you can easily look for correlations with that known date. Payday, however, varies from company to company. So there is no particular day to focus on, you have to look at them all. You can limit your focus to poorer neighborhoods; as you say, more affluent people tend to set up direct deposit. But you still have a lot of variables; you can intuitively think "I bet there is a correlation between lower income paydays and robberies at check cashing stores", but that is as far as intuition will get you without some technique to narrow down the possibilities inherent in that realization.
f I can figure out that payday (or the day after) is not the greatest day to be in the bank due to the sudden surge of activity,
Whose payday? We can't post cops at all of the check cashing storefronts (not banks) all the time, so which stores see the most crime after which companies' paydays?
If you can answer these questions with nothing but hunches and intuition, I'd suggest the stock market, not law enforcement.
Your idea of cleaning piss stains off of sheets is hanging the sheets out to dry? I think you misunderstood what your mom meant when she said she liked having crisp sheets on the bed.
I'm not sure if you are making a joke, or misread the GP. Just in case, polar bear liver has toxic levels of Vitamin A. So, you know, next time you kill and eat a polar bear, avoid the liver. Go for the fat instead, good source of Omega 3 fatty acids!
Are you saying Kevlar body armor is currently illegal, or that it (as well as mirrored glasses) will become illegal? Most places, body armor is legal. Well, unless you're a felon. But most people can buy Kevlar body armor most places. Are you by chance Australian?
Statistical probabilities like the 1:45K you cite cannot be multiplied by the damage if it materializes to predict any single event.
That's actually one of the basic techniques used in decision theory - action priority as a function of the probability of success and payoff. No, it is not as simple as just multiplying, but the premise remains the same. If the probability of success remains static (as well as other factors), but the reward increases, the weight given to choosing that action also increases.
Not that I think anyone has actually sat down and calculated a matrix that includes asteroid defense, global warming, energy dependency, and H5N1; I'm just saying, if you did, probabilities modified by damage IS one of the calculations you would include.
He should have known better than to engage in a sexual chat with someone that he believed to be a minor
Maybe he thought he was engaging in fantasy cyber sex with another consenting adult pretending to be a minor. You know, since that was what he was actually doing, and all he apparently had any intention of doing. The only thing we really know about this guy is that he enjoyed fantasies about sex with underage girls, didn't care to translate these online fantasies to reality (he didn't show up at the house), and was so upset at being labeled a child-molester on national TV that he killed himself. Sounds like a guy with issues, not a guy the world is better off without.
I agree that the quote makes an insightful point; at the least, it points out an all too plausible scenario. But just like a handful of other quotes, it gets tossed around here so often, so inappropriately, that I have a fairly negative opinion of Ayn Rand's writing based solely on the average caliber of the people that find her worthwhile. I know it's not fair or even rational, but I figure there is enough intelligent writing in the world that I can prune a few authors without having to worry about running out of good stuff to read.
I appreciate your constraint on behalf of my tender sensibilities:-)
Careful, now. You are practically begging someone to cut 'n paste that trite passage from Ayn Rand. I've never even read the book, and I think I could paraphrase it pretty well just from reading/.
You are making the common mistake of confusing authority with power. Being a parent gives you the authority to set limits. Being bigger, craftier/more experienced, and/or controlling all of the necessary resources gives you the power to enforce the limits you set. Which is why some parents can not enforce limits they try to set - the kid is tougher, craftier, and/or stronger than them.
Regardless, the forces aren't necessarily an 'invading force' (typically requires the goals of conquest or occupation;
While I don't necessarily disagree with your other points, this statement is ridiculous. Even accepting your definition for the term 'invading force'. The coalition forces went in, destroyed the previous power structure and are still there imposing (well, attempting to impose) the order they desire on the country. How is that NOT conquest and occupation? I understand conquest and occupation are emotionally loaded terms that a supporter of this war would prefer not to use, but the rest of your post was cogent and well reasoned. Don't make yourself look like an ass over semantics.
Well, I can understand people thinking New Mexico is a different country. I mean, it's so easy to forget about it, way up there in the corner like that.
Maybe I don't speak legalese fluently enough, but I don't understand the point of section 2) there. If the detention is unreasonable, the agent is NOT authorized under section 1), and thus not protected under section 2). If the detention IS reasonable, and the agent is authorized, then what liability would they have even without section 2)? What does section 2) actually add to this?
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, Canada has a "spy agency," but I have yet to read about them violating peoples rights.
See!! Just more proof that the damn Canadians are sneaky bastards! Their shit runs so deep, we've never even heard about it.
<sadly necessary JOKE disclaimer>
yeah, Newton was a real crackpot.
Damn, can his estate sue me?
The failing is that you'll never find a scientific theory that says a plane won't crash; science only goes as far as to explain why planes CAN work.... statistical evidence isn't a 'theory,' it merely presents probabilities, which are a useful guide as well.
Ok, I was a bit sloppy in my language. In both fields, one develops models based on underlying theories, plugs in the appropriate data and sees what the model predicts. Assuming both models are correct and complete, the failure of the statistical model to accurately predict a single occurrence is not necessarily a failure of the underlying theories; the failure of a valid scientific model to accurately predict a single occurrence does indicate a failure of the underlying theories. The difference being that complete and accurate scientific models, based on sound theories, predict what will happen every time the experiment is run. The same can not be said for statistical models. That is what I mean when I refer to scientific evidence as evidence, whereas statistical predictions, as you say, are merely useful guides. Both are a perfectly valid basis for forming opinions, decisions, what have you, but I do not see the two as equal. If you do, and accept statistical evidence as a basis for beliefs, then I guess we simply have different definitions of evidence and belief.
Neither of those kinds of evidence though will show that any kind of god exists.
I never intended to imply that either one could be used to prove the existence of a god. Although, I do find it interesting that neither one can be used to disprove the existence of a god, either. And while one certainly should not believe everything that can not be disproven (that is a whole lot of double negatives!), I think it equally absurd to claim that one should (or even can) only believe that which can be empirically proven, which is how I interpreted your statement that you only believe in things for which you have evidence.
Oh, BTW, I have indeed read Hume; as you noticed, his writing has influenced my thinking on the subject of rationality quite a bit. I also am particularly attracted to his political philosophy. I tend to find idealism of any sort dubious at best; his admittedly nebulous pragmatism at least avoids pushing my skepticism buttons.
I never suggested it wasn't reasonable to base future performance on unproved assumptions derived from previous experience. In fact, I believe I stated that it is unreasonable to attempt to never do so. My quibble was with the assertion that I tend to see people make in religious discussions that they don't form any beliefs (and by extension, act on these beliefs) based on unproven assumptions, i.e. without evidence. It is as if there are people out there that feel it somehow lends credence to their arguments to pretend to a level of abstract rationality that I doubt any human anywhere has ever obtained (I also doubt the desirability of such rationality, but that is beside the point).
This whole, "you can't be harshly skeptical of metaphysical or religious assertions while living a normal life without being a hypocrite" thing is so settled.
Whether someone is being hypocritical or not in their skepticism I generally couldn't say. However, resorting to absurd exaggerations about their own rationality in order to support their argument seldom makes me take their argument more seriously.
I guess it depends on what you mean by evidence. I think there is a big distinction between statistical evidence and scientific evidence. If I predict a plane won't crash based on scientific theories, and it crashes, we know at least one of my theories was incorrect. If I predict it won't crash based on statistical theories, and it crashes, this does not necessarily imply any of my theories were incorrect.
I don't believe in anything without evidence to show it
Inevitably, in a discussion about religion, someone will make a statement very similar to this to explain what they have against religious beliefs. And I'm not in any way suggesting the following to mean you should have any religious beliefs; I just find this statement to be as silly as most religious claims. Let me explain.
You don't believe in anything without evidence? Do you test all of your food for poison? Or do you eat it with a fatalistic attitude, "I don't know if it is poisoned or not, but I gotta eat so...". Or, do you take the completely reasonable attitude (if you think about it at all) that there are processes in place to insure publicly sold food is safe to eat, you trust that these processes have been applied to your food, and that most likely, your food is safe. Even though you hear every now and then about instances where publicly sold food was not safe, and people got sick or died from it, I doubt you still require actual evidence (and thus knowledge) that your food is safe before you eat it. Instead, you rely on a reasonable belief that your food is safe.
In fact, the reason I find claims such as "I believe nothing without evidence" to be so silly is because you really can't function in the world without forming reasonable beliefs and acting as though they were true. If you really insisted on evidence, and thus knowledge, about every little thing you trust yourself to in life, you would never fly in a plane you hadn't tested, never drive over a bridge you hadn't tested, etc. Or you are one bad-ass mo'fo'; I for one damn sure wouldn't get on a plane if I didn't believe it was operational. Fortunately for my travel plans, I don't require evidence that a plane is operational, merely a reasonable belief in the diligence of the airline that assures me their planes are operational.
Here's a list of names to look into if you are really interested in the history of this sort of thing.
My sister-in-law just graduated high school. She was a cheer leader, got poor grades, and seemed to be constantly bitching about one or another of the girls in her grade. So I assume she is pretty much the target audience for "teen fashion" crap. She LOVES those MTV "reality" drama shows. I seldom ever talk to her much beyond "Hi" and "Pass the salt", but I do overhear her conversations with my wife. It actually took me some time to be able to distinguish between her stories of petty drama that involved her and her peers and the stupid stories of petty drama that she was regurgitating from these shows. It still takes me some time to catch on that this story is real after she changes boyfriends; I tend to assume the new name is a new show, or new character (which also happens a lot, from what I gather).
So, to answer your question, I have no idea. But from what I can tell, MTV counts for at least as much in my sister-in-law's life as her actual life. Seriously. I've seen her crying over breaking up with her boyfriend, and she was less sad than the time she was crying over what turned out to be a break-up in a show.
I'm sorry to be pedantic, but you have the story and the meaning behind the phrase Sword of Damocles a bit confused. Dionysius didn't hang a sword over Damocles to demonstrate the value of life; he hung it over his throne after agreeing to allow Damocles be ruler for a day in order to demonstrate the perilousness of the throne; all Damocles could see before was the power and pleasure. Wiki linky
It's only a Sword of Damocles if you are unaware of it.
I am not sure about this, but I have never heard any sort of implication that Sword of Damocles refers to an unknown danger; merely an ever present, easily triggered danger inherent in a particular position or situation. For instance, Damocles himself became aware of his danger during the course of the meal.
The difference between welfare checks and payday checks is that all welfare checks do come out at the same time, so you can easily look for correlations with that known date. Payday, however, varies from company to company. So there is no particular day to focus on, you have to look at them all. You can limit your focus to poorer neighborhoods; as you say, more affluent people tend to set up direct deposit. But you still have a lot of variables; you can intuitively think "I bet there is a correlation between lower income paydays and robberies at check cashing stores", but that is as far as intuition will get you without some technique to narrow down the possibilities inherent in that realization.
f I can figure out that payday (or the day after) is not the greatest day to be in the bank due to the sudden surge of activity,
Whose payday? We can't post cops at all of the check cashing storefronts (not banks) all the time, so which stores see the most crime after which companies' paydays?
If you can answer these questions with nothing but hunches and intuition, I'd suggest the stock market, not law enforcement.
Your idea of cleaning piss stains off of sheets is hanging the sheets out to dry? I think you misunderstood what your mom meant when she said she liked having crisp sheets on the bed.
I'm not sure if you are making a joke, or misread the GP. Just in case, polar bear liver has toxic levels of Vitamin A. So, you know, next time you kill and eat a polar bear, avoid the liver. Go for the fat instead, good source of Omega 3 fatty acids!
Are you saying Kevlar body armor is currently illegal, or that it (as well as mirrored glasses) will become illegal? Most places, body armor is legal. Well, unless you're a felon. But most people can buy Kevlar body armor most places. Are you by chance Australian?
Statistical probabilities like the 1:45K you cite cannot be multiplied by the damage if it materializes to predict any single event.
That's actually one of the basic techniques used in decision theory - action priority as a function of the probability of success and payoff. No, it is not as simple as just multiplying, but the premise remains the same. If the probability of success remains static (as well as other factors), but the reward increases, the weight given to choosing that action also increases.
Not that I think anyone has actually sat down and calculated a matrix that includes asteroid defense, global warming, energy dependency, and H5N1; I'm just saying, if you did, probabilities modified by damage IS one of the calculations you would include.
He should have known better than to engage in a sexual chat with someone that he believed to be a minor
Maybe he thought he was engaging in fantasy cyber sex with another consenting adult pretending to be a minor. You know, since that was what he was actually doing, and all he apparently had any intention of doing. The only thing we really know about this guy is that he enjoyed fantasies about sex with underage girls, didn't care to translate these online fantasies to reality (he didn't show up at the house), and was so upset at being labeled a child-molester on national TV that he killed himself. Sounds like a guy with issues, not a guy the world is better off without.
I agree that the quote makes an insightful point; at the least, it points out an all too plausible scenario. But just like a handful of other quotes, it gets tossed around here so often, so inappropriately, that I have a fairly negative opinion of Ayn Rand's writing based solely on the average caliber of the people that find her worthwhile. I know it's not fair or even rational, but I figure there is enough intelligent writing in the world that I can prune a few authors without having to worry about running out of good stuff to read.
:-)
I appreciate your constraint on behalf of my tender sensibilities
I salute you, sir, for a pithy, acerbic comment that by all rights should leave Waffle Iron three inches shorter.
Careful, now. You are practically begging someone to cut 'n paste that trite passage from Ayn Rand. I've never even read the book, and I think I could paraphrase it pretty well just from reading /.
Who says you can't cut said coconut-sized rock into juicy, bite-sized pieces?
I'm not a geologist, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say cutting a rock isn't gonna make it juicy.
You are making the common mistake of confusing authority with power. Being a parent gives you the authority to set limits. Being bigger, craftier/more experienced, and/or controlling all of the necessary resources gives you the power to enforce the limits you set. Which is why some parents can not enforce limits they try to set - the kid is tougher, craftier, and/or stronger than them.
Regardless, the forces aren't necessarily an 'invading force' (typically requires the goals of conquest or occupation;
While I don't necessarily disagree with your other points, this statement is ridiculous. Even accepting your definition for the term 'invading force'. The coalition forces went in, destroyed the previous power structure and are still there imposing (well, attempting to impose) the order they desire on the country. How is that NOT conquest and occupation? I understand conquest and occupation are emotionally loaded terms that a supporter of this war would prefer not to use, but the rest of your post was cogent and well reasoned. Don't make yourself look like an ass over semantics.
Well, I can understand people thinking New Mexico is a different country. I mean, it's so easy to forget about it, way up there in the corner like that.
What exactly is the guy planning to hunt in Six Flags?
Maybe I don't speak legalese fluently enough, but I don't understand the point of section 2) there. If the detention is unreasonable, the agent is NOT authorized under section 1), and thus not protected under section 2). If the detention IS reasonable, and the agent is authorized, then what liability would they have even without section 2)? What does section 2) actually add to this?