Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Harm Done By Religion


Doug1066

Recommended Posts

Just now, Nuclear Wessel said:

... is a contradiction of the following claim you made here:

 

I'm not speaking about processed meat. If you cared to internalize what I was writing (maybe you just didn't understand it) you would see that I am strictly discussing your claims regarding red meatnot processed meat.

I'm not disputing whether or not they are harmful, specifically; my post was actually specifically addressing your claim on red meat, and how there is no proof that red meat is a carcinogen in humans, rather there is limited evidence to suggest that it might be. The evidence is insufficient to substantiate a classification of Group 1, thus it is Group 2A. 

Different physiological makeup? Different digestive mechanisms? Surely you're aware of the facial tumour disease that affects tasmanian devils? That doesn't affect humans. Just because something can cause cancer in one model that does not necessarily mean that it will be able to cause cancer in a different model. Any scientist worth their salt would never say that it has been proven that red meat causes cancer based on potential causal links in other models, with only limited evidence in humans.

As I highlighted above, there is a reason that it is in one group and NOT the other.

You're confusing proof with evidence, firstly--there is a distinction between the two. Proof represents a conclusion; an attempt would never be made to make a conclusion about human models based on findings in an a completely different species. We may have evidence, but a sufficient conclusion might not necessarily be drawn from it.

I did. You didn't, and that's why we're having this discussion.

But that's not the same as saying that it is a proven carcinogen within humans.

No contradiction 

I said 

 

  There is also some proof that red meat causes cancer 

 

There IS some proof.

  To reiterate

Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork, has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer.

.

The first is proven absolutely, the second is proven to the port of probability Ie enough reason see it as probable, and  to act upon it.

 

......................................

Ie if there was no proof there would be no evidence that this was probable 

The original source talked about red meat  so to stick to red meat

There are enough evidences to show that red meat causes cancer 

but not enough to  legislate it in the same category as  processed meat  This will occur as evidences become more known and clear

Not sure how you read this.

 there is limited evidence 

but I read it to say there ARE evidences, although those evidences are so far limited enough not to reclassify red meat   

The wording  specifically rules out their being NO evidences 

The actual correlation of red meat consumption with colon cancer is, in itself evidence of  some causation It is just that the causation has not been precisely identified s yet   ie we don't have evidences for precise causation but we do have evidences for cause and effect 

 

Ps I  have no bone in this dog fight.

I eat some red meat and i even eat a little processed meat 

My point is that I am making an INFORMED choice.

Its different  if people are not even aware of the effects  of red and processed meat on their bodies 

You are kinda like the people who argued for decades that, because it couldn't be proven precisely how smoking caused cancer then it was safe to smoke because may be it wasn't the smoking, but some other factor, which gave them cancer  

Your example of facial tumours is irrelevant. devils are biologically different  to humans (oh I see you think that even though other mammals get cancer from  red meat humans might not )  Risky logic a t best and not something i would stake my health upon.

 

Transmissible tumours (cancers)  dont exist in humans, BUT other cancers are caused by the same genetic and environmental  factors in all mammals  

As i said regarding the cohort of humanity  you would have to ask an expert.

But as far as i know there are no biological divergences among humans which would be sufficient enough to  make some unaffected or others more susceptible  Yes other diet and lifestyle factors might affect outcomes and gave some protection But chemically all human bodies respond in the same basic   way  to a pathogen or carcinogen because our physiology/ /biology is so similar  

Studies have been done all over the world and basically the results are the same  

evidences are the  pieces required to establish proof 

Id agree that we require  very different  evidential  standards of proof . 

Perhaps i am too ready to accept proof  with limited evidences but i suspect you are dangerously reluctant  to accept that anything you disagree with  is proven

  As i said earlier I think you might set impossibly high standards of proof.

I would add now that I suspect this might be so you'd never have to accept  that anything has been proven :)  eg if you  can convince yourself  that there is no proof that red meat causes cancer you can feel entirely comfortable eating it :)  

  I know it probably cause cancer but choose not to worry about that  (although i do eat less red meat for health and environmental reasons )

Ive just home cooked a really nice tender corned beef with sugar vinegar and cloves, and am off to have a couple of slices with some steamed veges :)  

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No contradiction 

 Not sure how you can argue that “causal links aren’t proven” following “There is also some proof that red meat causescancer ” is not a contradiction, but hey, if you insist. 

How can there be “proof that red meat causes cancer” but at the same time no causal link is proven?  :blink:

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

 Not sure how you can argue that “causal links aren’t proven” following “There is also some proof that red meat causescancer ” is not a contradiction, but hey, if you insist. 

How can there be “proof that red meat causes cancer” but at the same time no causal link is proven?  :blink:

Easy Its proven that red meat causes cancer BUT the actual causal links eg the body chemistry involved isn't yet FULLY understood or proven 

It used to be the same with cigarettes.

It was proven tha t smoking caused cancer, long before the chemistry caught up and we knew technically how the elements of a cigarette caused cancer 

Its not essential to prove the  specific causal links in order  to prove that something causes something else.

again from the cancer council of NSW.

 

There is strong evidence that eating red and processed meat causes bowel cancer. Bowel cancer is one of the most common cancers in Australia.

Red meat includes beef, lamb, pork, veal, goat, venison and kangaroo.

Researchers are still investigating how red and processed meat cause cancer. However, there are several possible reasons:

Red and processed meat contain haem iron, which makes meat red in colour. When haem is broken down in the gut it forms N-nitroso compounds. These can damage the cells lining the bowel, which can lead to cancer.

Cancer causing chemicals develop when meat is burnt or charred. Use lower temperatures to avoid burning and charring.

https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/cancer-prevention/diet-exercise/nutrition-and-diet/meat-and-cancer/

 

So, technically, raw meat may not be as likely to cause cancer as cooked meat, but who eats raw, red meat ?) 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a heads up. The Wiki article on Simpson's Paradox is a mess, although maybe the history of the thing is a mess and the collective approach to editing fails to clear things up.

@Liquid Gardens's choice of example, the batting averages, illustrates the usual "basic" Simpson's paradox. It is simply a fact of algebra that

a/b > c/d and w/x > y/z does NOT imply (a + w)/(b + x) > (c + y)/(d + z)

The "psychology" portion of the article is floundering desperately to say that aggregation is not a monotonic relation, unlike addition.

a/b > c/d and w/x > y/z does imply (a/b) + (w/x) > (c/d) + (y/z)

Well, not all relationships are monotonic, and to produce reliable work, you have to learn which ones are and which ones aren't among the relationships you use. Aggregation is not monotonic. So watch out if you aren't aware of that.

The defining feature of a basic Simpson's paradox is that all of the subgroups being aggregated have something in common, but the aggregate has the opposite quality.

Thus, @Mr Walker's choice of example is a different problem. Hopefully, there is nothing paradoxical that a group average will combine some values higher than the group average and other values lower than the group average. And sure enough, Berkeley's overall positive male-versus-female rate difference arises from individual decision making units where some have positive rate differences and some have negative differences.

The Berkely problem is different. The "mechanism" generating the data includes an interaction between the variable of interest (applicant gender) and the decision-making uints (departments). In fact, it is the object of the study to discover whether decision making interacts with applicant gender. Obviously, aggregation loses information about the decision making units, and in this case, loses all the information about the decision makers.

Fine, so we don't aggregate. Now what? Bigger than hell there is an interaction between applicant gender and unit. The $64 question is why?. Are the departments choosing gender, or are the genders choosing departments? It turns out that the answer to that is found by examining not only the departments' acceptance rates but also the genders' application rates.

BTW, that the gendered selection of department can account for the pattern of acceptances does not imply the absence of gender bias in acceptances. There may be gendered reasons why men are so eagerly applying to the engineering department while women are eagerly applying to the English department, and the institution as a whole may be responsible for some of that.

The moral of the Berkeley story, it seems to me, is that even if we avoid "aggregating out" one of the variables we're trying to study, we're still uncertain about the mechanism generating our data. At a minimum, we needed to consider hypotheses other than the one of principal interest (the institution discriminates against women), and see whether our data set displays something favoring one of those alternatives (women discriminate among departments, and do so in a way that "explains away" the aggregate result).

It is very likely that in the real world of 1970's Berkeley that both gendered applicant choices and also gendered departmental choices contributed something to the observed situation. These data don't eliminate that, even when we don't make a stupid analytical mistake and are careful to consider alternative hypotheses. Gender does matter according to these data.

It is not the data analyst's fault that knowing only the inputs (applications by department and gender) and the outputs (acceptances by department and gender), we're still largely igonorant about  what's going on inside the black box.

Edited by eight bits
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Desire is on par with an expectation or a personal preference, one doesn’t need to have a god fantasy to nurture kindness or compassion, if one wants more knowledge they can continue learning.  And, CH life has challenges at times, To me, it sounds like you are trying to create a fantasy or believe nonsense that you can live a life free of growth and challenges. 

 

Your post is a good example of how some expressions of religion or spirituality can be harmful.
 

 

 

Pure projection.

Just post another selfie love..

Your ego needs it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Easy Its proven that red meat causes cancer BUT the actual causal links eg the body chemistry involved isn't yet FULLY understood or proven 

It used to be the same with cigarettes.

It was proven tha t smoking caused cancer, long before the chemistry caught up and we knew technically how the elements of a cigarette caused cancer 

Its not essential to prove the  specific causal links in order  to prove that something causes something else.

again from the cancer council of NSW.

 

There is strong evidence that eating red and processed meat causes bowel cancer. Bowel cancer is one of the most common cancers in Australia.

Red meat includes beef, lamb, pork, veal, goat, venison and kangaroo.

Researchers are still investigating how red and processed meat cause cancer. However, there are several possible reasons:

Red and processed meat contain haem iron, which makes meat red in colour. When haem is broken down in the gut it forms N-nitroso compounds. These can damage the cells lining the bowel, which can lead to cancer.

Cancer causing chemicals develop when meat is burnt or charred. Use lower temperatures to avoid burning and charring.

https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/cancer-prevention/diet-exercise/nutrition-and-diet/meat-and-cancer/

 

So, technically, raw meat may not be as likely to cause cancer as cooked meat, but who eats raw, red meat ?) 

If there is no causal link then there is only a correlation, so it can’t be proven that there is a causal relationship between red meat and cancer. Which is exactly why red meat is defined as “probably” being a cause of cancer, and is not a Group 1 carcinogen.

Smoking is also an unfair comparison because that is listed as a Group 1 carcinogen. As is processed meat.

Either way, I am done with this argument because it is a FACT that there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE that red meat is carcinogenic to humans, hence why it is in the group that it is. Your inability to see that is just going to cause more derailing, and I honestly don’t care enough about proving you wrong to continue. 

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No, the paradox doesn't work like this.

What is 'this'?  I didn't actually mention Simpson's paradox in my post you quoted, the only paradox mentioned is the difference between:

"There is a family with two children. You have been told this family has a daughter. What are the odds they also have a son, assuming the biological odds of having a male or female child are equal? (Answer: 2/3.)" 

and

"Granted the question is subtle. Consider: we are to be visited by the two kids just described, at least one of which is a girl. It's a matter of chance who arrives first. The first child enters--a girl. The second knocks. What are the odds it's a boy? Answer: 1 in 2. Paradoxical but true."

(I still don't get the reasoning on the second statement, I understand the first one but I don't know why that reasoning/information no longer applies in the second scenario.  Which is what I was talking about here, which was not Simpson's paradox but about how small changes in semantics can lead to quite different probabilities.)

I'm not even sure where the paradox is in the Berkeley gender bias example, it looks more like an explanation of the data results, but it doesn't note where the aggregate findings are in conflict with anything except individual groups which as @eight bits already noted are expected. 

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thus, results which appeared paradoxical were shown not to be once the differences in/between  each cohort  were understood and accounted for

According to wiki some further break down 'paradoxes' into logical and semantic paradoxes.  There do seem to be some 'real' paradoxes in logic/math but that's way above our paygrade to evaluate, and I don't know how many of those also have explanations/qualifications that 'explain' the paradox. The batting average paradox is just a result of algebra/math, but I think is still a bit surprising if one is not constantly working with averages and such.  To me the 'semantic' paradox is still intact with this, there is no objective answer to the question, 'who had a better batting average in the years 1995-1996, Jeter or Justice?'.  Can't really answer that question and not because they tied, it's that in this specific case because of the paradox the question is not specific enough, although it would be in comparisons between almost any other batters.  In the vast majority of comparisons I would guess with active batters, a batter with individual yearly averages that are above another batter's would also have a higher average for the aggregated years, thus leading to the incorrect expectation that this is always the case.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

"Granted the question is subtle. Consider: we are to be visited by the two kids just described, at least one of which is a girl. It's a matter of chance who arrives first. The first child enters--a girl. The second knocks. What are the odds it's a boy? Answer: 1 in 2. Paradoxical but true."

I'll take a shot. So the "kids just described" (where g=girl, b=boy, gb girl older than boy, etc.) are such that

bg, gb and gg are all equally likely (p = 1/3).

If either child entering first is equally likely (p =1/2) then:

bg & g enters first (other child is a boy) = 1/6   (= 1/2*1/3)
gb & g enters first (other child is a boy) = 1/6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
other chid is a boy = 1/3

gg then g enters first and and other child is a girl = 1/3

P( other child is a boy | girl enters first ) = P( other child is a girl | girl enters first ) = 1/2

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not even sure where the paradox is in the Berkeley gender bias example, it looks more like an explanation of the data results, but it doesn't note where the aggregate findings are in conflict with anything except individual groups which as @eight bits already noted are expected.

Yes, I think that the topic of Simpson's Paradox got "opened up" by Wiki editors to "what can go wrong when you aggregate data?" The Berkeley example isn't paradoxical, but rather neglectful: you can lose track of a variable that you need in order to understand the data (departments in that case).

Economists are fond of another example of losing track of a critical variable which is also mentioned in the Wiki text, one where you're not even "aggregating." Increasing price should theoretically decrease demand, but if both are increasing over time as can happen easily with inflation (as in right now) and "pent up demand" (ditto), then you would observe a "spurious correlation" of increasing price accompanied by increasing demand.

That's not much of a "paradox," but it is a nice example of a correlation between two variables without a direct causal relationship between them (rather each participates in its own relationship with a third "hidden" or overlooked variable, time in this case).

Edited by eight bits
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2021 at 5:56 AM, Will Due said:

This is just one example of the many questions people have about the accuracies, or the suspected lack thereof, of what is written in the Bible regarding the historical facts surrounding the life of Jesus.

Why believe any of it then, Will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2021 at 12:22 PM, XenoFish said:

If we are to defend a loved one (parent, spouse, a friend, or our children), we know with certainty that they in fact exist. We can prove they exist. Yet, no so with your imaginary friend.

No one can see gravity, but yet it is respected. No one can see the wind, but yet we know it exists. No one can see, hear, or smell electricity, but we know about it by what it does. So you see, Fish, your reasoning is flawed. You talk a lot, but you don't say much. Now who's the imaginary friend?   LOL . . .

Edited by larryp
the details!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, larryp said:

Why believe any of it then, Will?

 

Because a lot of it rings true.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Because a lot of it rings true.

 

 

You mean the parts you cherry-pick. Is that reasonable, Will?

Edited by larryp
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2021 at 1:25 PM, XenoFish said:

You're trying to shoehorn this into a god thing. I think most of us know that the rain is real. If one get's wet from the rain, . . ."

No, he's not; you were stumped, that's all. Amit it. You had nothing to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, larryp said:

You mean the parts you cherry-pick. Is that reasonable, Will?

I cherry pick from all religions, more choice..

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

I'll take a shot. So the "kids just described" (where g=girl, b=boy, gb girl older than boy, etc.) are such that

bg, gb and gg are all equally likely (p = 1/3).

If either child entering first is equally likely (p =1/2) then:

bg & g enters first (other child is a boy) = 1/6   (= 1/2*1/3)
gb & g enters first (other child is a boy) = 1/6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
other chid is a boy = 1/3

gg then g enters first and and other child is a girl = 1/3

P( other child is a boy | girl enters first ) = P( other child is a girl | girl enters first ) = 1/2

Thanks, don't see a thing wrong with that logic, it just wouldn't occur to me to look at it that way (my statistics classes in school were unfortunately during those college years where I was more devoted to intense Jimi Hendrix studies and behavioral analysis of the residents of our sister floor at the dorm, I probably don't need to mention which one got the priority at the time...) .  I was having trouble with this flow, if it's correct, which 'seems' paradoxical:

Parent:  I have two children

LG: Then the chances of you having both a boy and a girl are 1/2.

Parent: I have a daughter, Suzy.

LG: Then the chances of your other child being a boy are 2/3.

<in walks girl>

Parent:  LG, I'd like you to meet Suzy.

LG:  Nice to meet you Suzy!  The chances of your other child being a boy just changed to 1/2.

I think I'm stalled because the girl walking in doesn't change any of the information I have, I already knew Suzy existed and was walking into rooms.  I think though it's the change in the implicit question being asked is what I need to instead focus on.

I'm not sure if this is at all a valid way to look at it instead of your multiplication of probabilities or I think is a different way of doing the same thing, but I was thinking about how you modeled it that our choices are "bg, gb, and gg".  Let's say that we number all the g's in those choices left to right from 1-4.  I kinda get that when we know one child is a girl, then two of the three possible groups (I suspect this is important and a cause of my misthinking) have a boy so the odds of the other child being a boy is 2/3.  Your explanation above does explain the 1/2, and I think I can also think about that from the perspective that the girl who enters can be any one of those 4 girl positions I've numbered, and girl position number 1 and 2 are in a group with a boy and 3 and 4 are grouped together so half of the possible positions for the girl have a boy as a sibling.  So what then throws me is why we don't use that approach for evaluating the first question: if I know the parent has a girl, that girl could be any one of the girls 1-4 and thus I'm at 1/2, which is different than the 2/3 real answer.  

But then I try a different example to see if that helps.  I flip 2 coins in the air and then look away before they land and a friend covers the results with a cloth.  My friend looks under and says, 'one is heads'.  Then chances are 2/3 the other is a tails.  My friend hands me the heads and leaves the other one hidden.  "Intuitively", it sure seems to me that the chance of the other coin being heads or tails is 1/2 as those are the odds of the results of any single coin no matter how many other coins were flipped and what values they had.  Now I just need to reverse engineer that thinking into the kid example to see why my numbering the girls doesn't work for the first question.

Not expecting you to educate me or anything on that, I think the answer is in how important it is to break things down into more statistics terms and evaluate it using math, and then maybe my error in that alternate way of thinking about it above would be more obvious. I think also that there's been a change from 'groups' to 'individuals' in evaluating this that is relevant and I'm ignorantly plowing over.

Part of my laying this out is that Walker inadvertently got me thinking about what a 'real paradox' actually is.  It sounds like there may be some more 'real' ones in math, I've seen references to one of Russell's paradoxes concerning sets that do/don't contain themselves that sails over my head.  One of the articles I looked at or maybe wiki mentioned things like 'this statement is false' as a paradox, but I don't think I see it as such although I don't have a more appropriate name for it other than semantic/boolean mind****.  The above with the children genders, or the smoker's paradox, only seems like a 'real paradox' due to assumptions or the way things 'seem'; are there any 'real paradoxes', if there is such a thing, that we've essentially proven exist?  So we have our person who knows nothing about smoking except that it's bad for your health, who finds out about the smoker's paradox; that person learns that smoking is not actually uniformly bad for your health, and we have 'an answer' for the paradox and why it is not actually contradictory and only seems that way.  In math or logic or anything I'd guess, are there 'real paradoxes' that are essentially proven to exist, and are not a matter of us potentially discovering something in the future that 'resolves' them?  As you can see with my struggles here if there are I probably won't understand the details, but was just curious if they existed and if 'real paradox' is not just based on what 'seems' to be.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

LG:  Nice to meet you Suzy!  The chances of your other child being a boy just changed to 1/2.

I think I'm stalled because the girl walking in doesn't change any of the information I have, I already knew Suzy existed and was walking into rooms. 

Yes, but the problem had one additional piece of information: suzy and suzy's sibling were equally likely to walk through the door this time.

[If it helps, there's another well-known "discussion problem" involving cards where the equivalent of the "either child was equally likely to be the first one through the door" condition is omitted. Without it, there is no single correct solution, and perhaps your realizing that is where the hang-up is ... if there was a brother, then he had a fair chance to reveal himself but failed to do so, which is evidence about whether or not he exists ... hmm, that sounds a bit like God, doesn't it? :innocent: ).

Maybe it's best to see whether that cleared the smoke before taking on the rest (if we still need to).

Oh, OK, just a little more.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

this statement is false ... paradox

Because if what the statement asserts is true, then the statement is false, but if the statement is false, then the statement is true.

Don't sweat a name for it, because it (in its many variations) has had many names over the millennia it's been known. The This Statement is False Paradox will do as well as any other it's had.

Edited by eight bits
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2021 at 5:40 PM, joc said:

You are no different than Will Due posting scripture from The Uranatian.   pun intended 

Those two are full of themselves, if they are not different from each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

I'll take a shot. So the "kids just described" (where g=girl, b=boy, gb girl older than boy, etc.) are such that

bg, gb and gg are all equally likely (p = 1/3).

If either child entering first is equally likely (p =1/2) then:

bg & g enters first (other child is a boy) = 1/6   (= 1/2*1/3)
gb & g enters first (other child is a boy) = 1/6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
other chid is a boy = 1/3

gg then g enters first and and other child is a girl = 1/3

P( other child is a boy | girl enters first ) = P( other child is a girl | girl enters first ) = 1/2

Yes, I think that the topic of Simpson's Paradox got "opened up" by Wiki editors to "what can go wrong when you aggregate data?" The Berkeley example isn't paradoxical, but rather neglectful: you can lose track of a variable that you need in order to understand the data (departments in that case).

Economists are fond of another example of losing track of a critical variable which is also mentioned in the Wiki text, one where you're not even "aggregating." Increasing price should theoretically decrease demand, but if both are increasing over time as can happen easily with inflation (as in right now) and "pent up demand" (ditto), then you would observe a "spurious correlation" of increasing price accompanied by increasing demand.

That's not much of a "paradox," but it is a nice example of a correlation between two variables without a direct causal relationship between them (rather each participates in its own relationship with a third "hidden" or overlooked variable, time in this case).

No thanks fellas, or fellettes, and anyone else not sure. I think I'll waste my time trying to find an imaginary place, rather than tinker with imaginary and hypothetical scenarios. I'll just wait for the knock on the door, and see which one came a knocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, larryp said:

You mean the parts you cherry-pick. Is that reasonable, Will?

Hi Larry

Go easy on Will he is an apprentice cherry picker and not  a pro like you, give it some time he may surpass your own abilities one day.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Yes, but the problem had one additional piece of information: suzy and suzy's sibling were equally likely to walk through the door this time.

Which seemingly 'paradoxically' can affect the probability of gender distributions, cool but weird.  The above is a very illuminating point as at least part of my error is I'm glossing over/ignoring the walk-thru-the-door probability because the chances are equal: if the chances were not equally likely that either sibling would enter then it seems like the only way to evaluate that would be using your 1/2 x 1/3 method, except we would change the '1/2' to the corresponding door-entry percentage (I think).  So I shouldn't then be dropping that percentage when they are equal either. 

Again just seems odd that you can change the probability by introducing something seemingly irrelevant; at the surface, why does gender have anything to do with walking through doors.  That's not the proper way to think about the comparison of course, it's that they both have something to do with probabilities.  It seems like you can, carefully, plug in so many examples here for 'walking in', thinking about it I think I've seen similar questions pop up in various articles I've seen on the internet about 'lateral thinking' puzzles. I'm not confident about the following at all, but if I change my flow with this:

Parent: I have a daughter, Suzy.

LG: Then the chances of your other child being a boy are 2/3.

LG: (not true but using as example) Did you know that there is an equal chance that you named your child with a starting letter of a consonant vs a vowel (and I think I have to include, "and if you have 2 kids you have to name one with a consonant and one with a vowel")?  

Parent: Interesting, my daughter's name is Suzy.

LG: (?) Then the chance your other child is a boy just changed to 1/2 (?)

... is there any difference with Suzy walking in?

34 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Maybe it's best to see whether that cleared the smoke before taking on the rest (if we still need to).

Taking on the rest is not at all necessary of course, I had been idly mulling this over in my brain for a few weeks and didn't see an obvious board to post my questions/confusion on, and don't mean to drag you through the steps of my very incomplete thinking on it.  Wasn't sure either how many people here would have any input on it but since we had a recent discussion about wineskins and vinegar on this thread I figured this was good a place as any and on-topic enough.  And obviously I know that you work with this kind of stuff fairly frequently I believe, or are at least statistics-adjacent in real life, so appreciate your input, definitely a little less smoky! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

... is a contradiction of the following claim you made here:

 

I'm not speaking about processed meat. If you cared to internalize what I was writing (maybe you just didn't understand it) you would see that I am strictly discussing your claims regarding red meatnot processed meat.

I'm not disputing whether or not they are harmful, specifically; my post was actually specifically addressing your claim on red meat, and how there is no proof that red meat is a carcinogen in humans, rather there is limited evidence to suggest that it might be. The evidence is insufficient to substantiate a classification of Group 1, thus it is Group 2A. 

Different physiological makeup? Different digestive mechanisms? Surely you're aware of the facial tumour disease that affects tasmanian devils? That doesn't affect humans. Just because something can cause cancer in one model that does not necessarily mean that it will be able to cause cancer in a different model. Any scientist worth their salt would never say that it has been proven that red meat causes cancer based on potential causal links in other models, with only limited evidence in humans.

As I highlighted above, there is a reason that it is in one group and NOT the other.

You're confusing proof with evidence, firstly--there is a distinction between the two. Proof represents a conclusion; an attempt would never be made to make a conclusion about human models based on findings in an a completely different species. We may have evidence, but a sufficient conclusion might not necessarily be drawn from it.

I did. You didn't, and that's why we're having this discussion.

But that's not the same as saying that it is a proven carcinogen within humans.

I have learned so much from you, @Liquid Gardens and @eight bits excellent job on explaining and providing examples boys. :wub:

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

I have learned so much from you, @Liquid Gardens and @eight bits excellent job on explaining and proving examples boys. :wub:

Thanks, but I'm obviously learning as I go here too on this one!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks, but I'm obviously learning as I go here too on this one!

You do an exceptional job of breaking things down for the layperson. Much gratitude to you.:wub:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe some of Zeno's paradoxes are still unsolved to everyone's satisfaction. Why don't you gents have a crack at that? No harm done by Zeno's religion, the one preached by his master, Parmenides. Philosophy is , after all a religion too, the religion of truth, the real religion of reality.

It seems that there is an important rule when dealing with paradoxes, which is also an important rule governing the posting on this Forum. A rule that must be held in abeyance, if we are to seriously seek a solution to any of the unexplained mysteries in repository, or active status. For those that do not read Plato, or are not aware that most of what we know about Zeno, and his paradoxes, comes to us through Plato, and his Academy's alumni.

This is also from another great school, a more modern one, one located on the west coast of Atlantis, in Atlas' portion, to be more exact. In case anyone here is cross-threading Atlantis, Florida is within the 50 stades, or states, and located on the east coast of Atlas' portion. I think someone was mistaken along the way in all those manual reprinting, and at some point "states" became "stades." An honest mistake, just one letter.

As we read the arguments it is crucial to keep this method in mind. They are always directed towards a more-or-less specific target: the views of some person or school. We must bear in mind that the arguments are ‘ad hominem’ in the literal Latin sense of being directed ‘at (the views of) persons’, but not ‘ad hominem’ in the traditional technical sense of attacking the (character of the) people who put forward the views rather than attacking the views themselves. They work by temporarily supposing ‘for argument’s sake’ that those assertions are true, and then arguing that if they are then absurd consequences follow—that nothing moves for example: they are ‘reductio ad absurdum’ arguments (or ‘dialectic’ in the sense of the period). Then, if the argument is logically valid, and the conclusion genuinely unacceptable, the assertions must be false after all. Thus when we look at Zeno’s arguments we must ask two related questions: whom or what position is Zeno attacking, and what exactly is assumed for argument’s sake? If we find that Zeno makes hidden assumptions beyond what the position under attack commits one to, then the absurd conclusion can be avoided by denying one of the hidden assumptions, while maintaining the position. Indeed commentators at least since Aristotle have responded to Zeno in this way.

Before we look at the paradoxes themselves it will be useful to sketch some of their historical and logical significance. First, Zeno sought to defend Parmenides by attacking his critics. Parmenides rejected pluralism and the reality of any kind of change: for him all was one indivisible, unchanging reality, and any appearances to the contrary were illusions, to be dispelled by reason and revelation. Not surprisingly, this philosophy found many critics, who ridiculed the suggestion; after all it flies in the face of some of our most basic beliefs about the world. (Interestingly, general relativity—particularly quantum general relativity—arguably provides a novel—if novelty is possible—argument for the Parmenidean denial of change: Belot and Earman, 2001.) In response to this criticism Zeno did something that may sound obvious, but which had a profound impact on Greek philosophy that is felt to this day: he attempted to show that equal absurdities followed logically from the denial of Parmenides’ views. You think that there are many things? Then you must conclude that everything is both infinitely small and infinitely big! You think that motion is infinitely divisible? Then it follows that nothing moves! (This is what a ‘paradox’ is: a demonstration that a contradiction or absurd consequence follows from apparently reasonable assumptions.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Pure projection.

Just post another selfie love..

Your ego needs it!!

Oh dear, you got offended, well that was not the point. 
 

Ones subjective spin isn’t a one size fits all, nor represents meditation.
 

None the less, I took your suggestion and posted a new pic.:P

 

All the best to you.

 

:wub:

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.