396 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

aquatus1, on 13 March 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

I believe what Little Fish is asking (in his own ham-handed way), is for an explanation of how the data that created the graph came about.

that's not what I was asking.

Quote

We he certainly has a right to ask, as long as he gives a token of good intent by promising to listen to the explanation.

eh? I have no right to ask unless I promise something?

[Little Fish]

aquatus1, on 13 March 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

Little Fish, if the others go into detail, are you willing to listen to them?

go on then, knock my socks off.

we have had over 100 posts over several pages on this simple question, and still no explanation of bill gates extraordinary snake oil pseudoscience claim that vaccinations reduce population growth. do you really think those 'others' have any details that would enlighten anyone to bill gates position at this stage? those 'others' are stuck. which is why they ask distracting counter questions, and use other rhetorical avoidance and sophistry techniques. its a simple question.

Edited by Little Fish, 13 March 2012 - 10:36 AM.

[Saru]

Little Fish, on 13 March 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

that's not what I was asking.
eh? I have no right to ask unless I promise something?

There's little point asking questions if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

If you "know" you are right about everything to do with this and that everyone else here is wrong then there's little point continuing this discussion.

[Little Fish]

Saru, on 13 March 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

There's little point asking questions if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

If you "know" you are right about everything to do with this and that everyone else here is wrong then there's little point continuing this discussion.

something is not true just because someone says it's true, and when a poster says that I will not listen to answers, that is an unfair, unfounded and unjustified criticism.

I am prepared to listen to answers, and prepared to discuss those answers, so far there has been no sensible answers. I've read a fair bit about demographics including books on the subject. I understand the causal factors of population growth, the wiki article with the graph even explains those causal factors. I have even stated them in this thread, but maybe that was lost in the noise which confuses those that just jump in and out from time to time. There is nothing i have come across that mentions lower infant mortality causing lower population growth, so if someone knows anything more then I'd like to hear it. it's clear they don't know as they would have said by now. merely pointing to my rejecting an invalid statistical technique is not evidence of me not listening.

so why do people believe it to be true? because bill gates who is in the business of selling vaccines says it's true? and the reasoning gates gives is clear pseudoscience, no statistician or even anyone with common sense would accept gate's reasoning and for someone like gates who is top of his game in a field based on logic, this is quite remarkable. indeed when I used the same reasoning and the same wording as gates, it was correctly pointed out the reasoning was flawed, so people are prepared to attack the reasoning when I say it, but defend the reasoning when Gates says it. I could fairly guess why they do that, but I don't think that would be helpful.

[Saru]

Little Fish, on 13 March 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

when a poster says that I will not listen to answers, that is an unfair, unfounded and unjustified criticism.

Not from the perspective of anyone else reading this thread.

Little Fish, on 13 March 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

I am prepared to listen to answers, and prepared to discuss those answers, so far there has been no sensible answers.

People have been providing you with sensible answers, it has been your choice to ignore or dismiss them.

It is a bit of a contradiction to state that it is unjustified criticism to point out that you won't listen to what people are saying while at the same time declaring those answers unworthy of a response because you don't personally consider them to be 'sensible'.

[Little Fish]

Saru, on 13 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Not from the perspective of anyone else reading this thread.

perspectives aren't always the truth.

Quote

People have been providing you with sensible answers, it has been your choice to ignore or dismiss them.

eh? where have I ignored answers?

Quote

It is a bit of a contradiction to state that it is unjustified criticism to point out that you won't listen to what people are saying while at the same time declaring those answers unworthy of a response because you don't personally consider them to be 'sensible'.

if someone can point out where I have declared an answer unworthy of a response, I'd appreciate it.

[Saru]

Re-read the last few comments, you know what i'm talking about.

You have this thread going in circles:

• Demand explanation for A
  
• Others provide explanation for A
  
• Disagree with explanation for A
  
• Insist that nobody has provided an explanation for A
  
• Demand explanation for A

You've stonewalled the discussion in to a position whereby only an explanation you agree with will allow it to continue.

[Little Fish]

Saru, on 13 March 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Re-read the last few comments, you know what i'm talking about.

You have this thread going in circles:

• Demand explanation for A
  
• Others provide explanation for A
  
• Disagree with explanation for A
  
• Insist that nobody has provided an explanation for A
  
• Demand explanation for A

its not a question of disagreeing, the explanation given (an inference from the chart) is an invalid statistical method. the accompanying wikipedia article that the graph came from does not support the explanation given, so its just a chart, the same as bill gates gave, I asked abou the chart bill gates gave, and I get given the chart again - circular reasoning - A is true because of A.
ref, posts 312 and 346

"Correlation does not equal causation is a quip that expresses the logical fallacy that events or statistics that happen to coincide with each other are causally related. The reality is that cause and effect can be indirect, or due to confounding variables, and so the assumption of causation is false when the only evidence available is simple correlation. The form of fallacy that it addresses is known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc or "affirming the consequent"."
http://rationalwiki....equal_causation

Quote

You've stonewalled the discussion in to a position whereby only an explanation you agree with will allow it to continue.

I'm asking for an explanation that makes sense, not one that amounts to a logical fallacy. I am asking about bill gates bogus inference from his chart (his evidence), I am being given the chart again. if it's going in circles it's because of circular reasoning within the "explanation".

[liteness]

Little Fish, on 13 March 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

go on then, knock my socks off.

we have had over 100 posts over several pages on this simple question, and still no explanation of bill gates extraordinary snake oil pseudoscience claim that vaccinations reduce population growth. do you really think those 'others' have any details that would enlighten anyone to bill gates position at this stage? those 'others' are stuck. which is why they ask distracting counter questions, and use other rhetorical avoidance and sophistry techniques. its a simple question.

bill gates extraordinary snake oil
That was for some reason very funny.
My opinion, is that Little Fish has been the patient one here, actually. Despite the divine intervention of forum mods.
He is asking such a simple question. Why can't it be answered?
Why is it so difficult?
This is not forth grade, I personally don't see the need to break down the question with graphs and theories.
I mean c'mon, Nuclear fission is a tough thing to understand when you break it down in physics.
But if you simply answer the question of why and how Nuclear fission works, it's quite simple.

1. Trigger gets signal to shoot: Subcritical mass.
2. Trigger strikes the supercritical mass.
3. Core expands, exerting pressure on the Tamper.
4. The tamper expands.
5. Expansion dies down and pressure exerts on the core.
6. Fission takes place.(splitting of heavy nucleus)
7. The bomb explodes.

Easy and understandable.
Now, I too have wondered what Gates means with his claim.
How can vaccinations reduce population growth?

I will try to answer it myself.

1. Think up a good idea on how to sneak in some funky snake oil to reduce population. (Fertility?)
2. Stab a few hundred million people with it.
3. Wait for results.

The question is then, can there be any scientific(excepted) theory on how vaccinations can decrease population?
Nope.
Why?
Because it's incredible. And such research/evidence will NEVER get into the mainstream media(Here in Norway btw, there's a huge thing about the swineflu vaccine causing many cases of narcolepsy, also in Finland I've read).
And what does not get mainstreamed, does not get accepted by those who may or may not like to research on their own.
I'm not a scientist on biology, chemistry or an expert on how to decrease population.
But I do understand how vaccinations work, I do understand the benefits and I also understand the cons.
I am a self proclaimed expert on those in power who are against humanity, philosophically and in cause and effect.
And there are many. Gates is one.
Naturally, these are merely my opinions for others with their computers, looking at this forum to read.
If one or many of you think I'm wrong. That's fine. I'm ok with that.

Obviously, my explanation on how vaccinations decrease world population are sarcastic and I'm not claiming them as true, nor do I have evidence to back it up.

But at least I answered.

[aquatus1]

No, you actually didn't.  You just did the same thing Little Fish is doing.

[badeskov]

Little Fish, on 13 March 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

if you are willing to address questions, then the question is how do you think lower infant death rates lower population growth. that graph does not show it. you are assuming that one is causal to the other which it isn't. as explained previously, you could plot the uptake of fridges and it would correlate with lower infant death rates, but one does not cause the other.

Actually, it does indeed. It is a very well known model showing the correlation between decreasing infant mortality rates and the subsequent lower birth rates. Now if you, as suggested, had actually opened that Wiki link and read it instead of continuously sprouting nonsense, you would have know that by know. Instead, you merely managed to blatantly put on display the behavior that aquatus1 and Sary very well described. It is toe cringing to watch.

But to remedy your intellectual laziness and what I can on read as your inability to comprehend even simple data correlations, here is an excerpt from Nature, 2009 (which you would have found had you had the intellectual integrity to actually read what was linked to):

Quote

During the twentieth century, the global population has gone through unprecedented increases in economic and social development that coincided with substantial declines in human fertility and population growth rates

^1,2

. The negative association of fertility with economic and social development has therefore become one of the most solidly established and generally accepted empirical regularities in the social sciences

^1,2,3

. As a result of this close connection between development and fertility decline, more than half of the global population now lives in regions with below-replacement fertility (less than 2.1 children per woman)

⁴

.

Now, that spells it out pretty solidly. Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?! I have for your convenience highlighted the pertinent parts.

Quote

no that's not correct. lower birth rates and lower infant mortality rates are both a consequence of a country moving from pre-industrial to a modern industrialized economic system, as is an increase in fridges and many other things. you cannot pull out two lines on a graph that happen to be going in the same direction and say one is a consequence of the other. "all things being equal" is your operative assumption, which they are most definitely not. if you vaccinate the third world, it's still the third world, and vaccinating a third world economic system does not change it into a first world economic system.

Yes, they are all mixed, as also explained earlier, hence the requirement to look at birth and infant mortality rates before linking them to vaccines, fridges and what have you. But it is a well established fact that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates, no matter the reasons for the lower infant mortality rates.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that correlation now? If not, please explain why in detail. If you do, however, we can start looking at the causes.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 14 March 2012 - 04:33 AM.

[liteness]

badeskov, on 14 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Actually, it does indeed. It is a very well known model showing the correlation between decreasing infant mortality rates and the subsequent lower birth rates. Now if you, as suggested, had actually opened that Wiki link and read it instead of continuously sprouting nonsense, you would have know that by know. Instead, you merely managed to blatantly put on display the behavior that aquatus1 and Sary very well described. It is toe cringing to watch.

But to remedy your intellectual laziness and what I can on read as your inability to comprehend even simple data correlations, here is an excerpt from Nature, 2009 (which you would have found had you had the intellectual integrity to actually read what was linked to):




Now, that spells it out pretty solidly. Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?! I have for your convenience highlighted the pertinent parts.



Yes, they are all mixed, as also explained earlier, hence the requirement to look at birth and infant mortality rates before linking them to vaccines, fridges and what have you. But it is a well established fact that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates, no matter the reasons for the lower infant mortality rates.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that correlation now? If not, please explain why in detail. If you do, however, we can start looking at the causes.

Cheers,
Badeskov

It is not difficult to acknowledge the correlation. I have enjoyed this thread personally. (I have not read everything though, I have not had time. Sorry! but I would like to join in and please forgive the repeats if any on my part)
I appreciate the sources, links and opinion you have provided.
You wish to go through the detailed and break things down. I'll join you on that, if we can eventually hit the main question.

Now, to not mix things up any more than they need to be. I presume we can agree on what a correlation is.

"In statistics, dependence refers to any statistical relationship between two random variables or two sets of data. Correlation refers to any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence." Wiki.


Having cleared that up. I can agree to move things along there is a correlation with statistical data showing a relationship with lower infant mortality rates and lower birth rates. But I would not agree that you can state that one leads to the other as a well established fact. There you are assuming one leads to the other, as a fact.
This is what little fish was trying to explain. You can not state that lower infant mortality rates leads to lower birth rates as a well established fact. You have not presented anything that prove that statement. And you will not find anything that can prove that statement. There is a close connection, a correlation between the two, statistically.
A predictive relationship.

I assume we've moved forward, so I will continue the debate. If we have not moved forward, please save this section of my reply for further use.

For example. There is a also a correlation, predictive relationship, (and actually, well established fact) that lower sperm count leads to lower birth rate.
Right?

http://www.ispub.com...s-decrease.html

Now, male sperm count decrease can predict birth rate decrease. Without having anything to do with infant mortality rates.

Do you agree?

Thanks for your upcoming reply and attention.

[liteness]

Please continue to save this reply for further use if we have not gone forward in the debate from infant mortality rates.

Now, you can correlate decreasing sperm count in men with the environment, diet and life style.
For example, the largest correlation with decreasing sperm count in men is fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and other various toxins.

I'll stop here.

[liteness]

In correlation relationships, often it is reasonable and responsible to look at the hypothesis upside down, or backwards.
Lower birth rates can lead to lower IMR and IMR can lead to lower birth rates.
The correlation is valid in both aspects of the hypothesis.
No well established facts here though, not a scientific fact at least. And this is science?

thanks
lite

[FurthurBB]

badeskov, on 14 March 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Actually, it does indeed. It is a very well known model showing the correlation between decreasing infant mortality rates and the subsequent lower birth rates. Now if you, as suggested, had actually opened that Wiki link and read it instead of continuously sprouting nonsense, you would have know that by know. Instead, you merely managed to blatantly put on display the behavior that aquatus1 and Sary very well described. It is toe cringing to watch.

But to remedy your intellectual laziness and what I can on read as your inability to comprehend even simple data correlations, here is an excerpt from Nature, 2009 (which you would have found had you had the intellectual integrity to actually read what was linked to):




Now, that spells it out pretty solidly. Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?! I have for your convenience highlighted the pertinent parts.



Yes, they are all mixed, as also explained earlier, hence the requirement to look at birth and infant mortality rates before linking them to vaccines, fridges and what have you. But it is a well established fact that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates, no matter the reasons for the lower infant mortality rates.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that correlation now? If not, please explain why in detail. If you do, however, we can start looking at the causes.

Cheers,
Badeskov

True and ecologists and wildlife specialist use a similar statistic to predict population growth or decline in wildlife.  They look at the amount of young vs old in a species.  If the population is mostly young there will be population growth, if it is mostly old there will population decline.  If a population is mostly young then there has recently been high mortality.  If a population has more older members then the mortality has recently been low and so will the population growth be.  And what do you know, wildlife have no refrigerators.  I just wanted to edit to add that in the case of most wildlife this changes this changes more often than in human populations.  Sometimes it changes yearly.

Edited by FurthurBB, 14 March 2012 - 12:09 PM.