> The idea that Biden knows more than I do is, well, pretty funny.
This line almost deserves an entire post of its own, and you could even loop in all of the administration and its "experts" (oh how magical of a word this is) for extra emphasis/lulz. I may even be willing to collaborate with you on it if we could work on it over some period of time, and you did not associate me in any way with the resulting post..
> And yet the idea that PEOPLE CAN IMPROVE!!! in this regard is something I see disproven very regularly.
What you go on to list is in no way a disproof.
> Longtime readers may know I’m an agnostic who doesn’t care for skeptical atheism. Yes, I can understand why a person might like to think like a frequentist statistician, default to the null hypothesis, and say “There’s no clear evidence that God exists, therefore I do not believe in God.” But I don’t think it makes sense to default to the null hypothesis to begin with....
Like most people, you misunderstand the null hypothesis.
With some help from ChatGPT:
The null hypothesis is specifically applicable to the domain of statistical hypothesis testing, where it is used as a benchmark to evaluate the likelihood of observing the data under the assumption that there is no effect or difference between groups. For example, in a medical study comparing the efficacy of a new drug to a placebo, the null hypothesis might state that there is no difference in patient outcomes between the drug and placebo groups.
However, applying the concept of the null hypothesis to assert the truth or falsehood of a proposition outside of statistical testing is incorrect and confused. For instance, claiming that a philosophical assertion (e.g., "All humans have free will") is false by default because of the null hypothesis is a misuse of the concept. The null hypothesis does not provide a valid basis for determining the truth value of propositions in logic, philosophy, or general knowledge claims. Such assertions require evidence and logical argumentation to establish their validity, rather than a statistical default assumption.
> But there’s an even deeper problem here. A problem that relates to intellectual humility, our tendency to make mistakes, and the limits of human knowledge. The question about the nature and number of deities in our world....
There's an even deeper problem than this: reality is mostly a hallucination, but our fundamentalist Scientific Materialistic education system teaches us a simplistic and *literally incorrect* model of reality, asserting (incorrectly) that it is ~equal to the universe (the material realm *only*).
> I can understand a religious person feeling compelled to take a stand on this difficult question. For the most part, they’re not trying to reason objectively.
The same is true of rationalists, scientific materialists, etc.
There are some exceptions (me), and I am *deeply* religious.
> Instead, they’re acting under the idea that their feelings are informative about things that exist at a deeper level of reality.
Is this to say that there are no deeper levels of reality?
> We have very little influence on the way people around us think
It is not possible for you to know this with any sort of accuracy, for several different reasons (one of them being the culture you were raised in rendering you unable to think clearly).
> But unfortunately, people like us have very little ability to change anyone’s minds.
That may be true, but you Normies may be in luck: *I am not like you*.
Fair - though I do have other reasons for swinging in the sunset that I didn't list.
> Like most people, you misunderstand the null hypothesis.
I've actually tutored students in statistics before, and pointed out that the choice of null hypothesis isn't always obvious. But it isn't a misuse of the null to say things like "No evidence for the efficacy of prayer;" or "no evidence for miraculous healing." Nor is it a misuse of the term frequentism to say that "A person reasons like a frequentist" when they say "God is just a type I error!" https://the-mouse-trap.com/2008/04/23/god-is-just-a-type-i-error/
> > I can understand a religious person feeling compelled to take a stand on this difficult question. For the most part, they’re not trying to reason objectively.
> The same is true of rationalists, scientific materialists, etc.
> Fair - though I do have other reasons for swinging in the sunset that I didn't list.
You changed it to disconfirmed: "show that (a belief or hypothesis) is not or MAY not be true."
If you run an entire species on misinformative linguistic trickery like this, SHOULD IT BE SURPRISING THEY DON'T IMPROVE? This is the kind of shit The Experts do constantly, and why I hate them so.
> But it isn't a misuse of the null to say things like "No evidence for the efficacy of prayer;"
It is bad epistemology, and it is also literally false. *Even the hallucinatory, insular institution of The Science* acknowledges that benefits of religion and prayer *can even be measured*.
And, be careful: indeed you can say that "the null hypothesis says no causal relationship", if you *frame it* as such you are within the rules, but if you then state that *there is no* causal relationship, you are not within the dumbed down safe zone of statistics anymore, you are in the realm of logic and epistemology, and that is not allowed.
> Nor is it a misuse of the term frequentism to say that "A person reasons like a frequentist" when they say "God is just a type I error!"
Please explain what the word "just" is doing in that sentence.
Let's take it out and see how it looks: "God is a type I error!"
"A type I error occurs when in research when we reject the null hypothesis and erroneously state that the study found significant differences when there indeed was no difference. In other words, it is equivalent to saying that the groups or variables differ when, in fact, they do not or having false positives."
Like....what does this even mean? Or to make it easier: which of the many (contradictory) (layers of) meanings of "is" are you ascribing to the symbol in this context?
Or, how about the symbol "God"?
> I don't think you're very familiar with the typical religious person, or the typical atheist.
I'm not, *and neither are you*, because such a thing is impossible. You know what I do know quite a bit about though: Normies. They hallucinate, *constantly*, because that is how they are taught to think from day one, constantly, and even by the very best of our institutions: Science (as it is, including at the object level, which the faithful would have you believe "doesn't count" when referring to Science).
> Research finds that both intelligence and analytical thinking increase as levels of belief drop.
Research *suggests*. One thing I love about religious folks and scientific folks: most have a poor understanding of their respective scriptures.
Of course, I'm nitpicking to the point of disingenuousness here, I can appreciate that *in the aggregate* (ONLY), science cultists are more rational than religion cultists....but on an absolute scale, they are both highly delusional (and once again: their respective scriptures are not the only things being compared).
Note also in your study they are opining on *causality* - acknowledge the numerous other variables in play at the causal level, and you will(!) find that your (*implied but not explicitly asserted* cause & effect relationship) "facts" are an illusion.
> When I was a young, passionate Christian and unaware of this, it definitely seemed rather that the reverse was the case, given the amount of study and understanding required to grasp what the religion is about.
Consider how likely it is that you've reached a state of pure rationality now.
> I now realize most believers simply don't grasp what the religion is about; they just go to church and pray.
Here we agree, but guess what: the same is true of science's fan base (and scientists, *at least often*) - I argue with these people on a daily basis, it is literally my hobby. All humans are this way, it is an EXTREME violation of the "social overton window of behavior and cognition" to be otherwise.
Yet another error: equating understanding religion with memorization of the contents of the bible. This is incorrect in more than one way.
> That is probably the first time in my life anyone ever called me a normie; I must be getting old!
It is simply your training. All of you people are this way, you *cannot even try* to be otherwise....not really, not *currently*, extremely similar to how (and why) you are unable to juggle five balls: you have never tried to learn it, in no small part because your culture does not teach it (except it's even worse than that: if you did try to learn how to juggle, your culture wouldn't collectively attack you for the idea).
EDIT: I do have something nice to say about you though - you are extremely rare in the amount of verbal abuse you can take, and seem to have zero detectable (to me anyways) negative emotional reaction, but keep on grinding with *admittedly not bad* (on a relative scale anyways) arguments. I only recall meeting one other person like this (though, it wasn't entirely legitimate in that he knew I was playing a game....maybe you do too?). I am very lacking in this regard myself lol.
You are fun to talk to, the world would be a better place if more Normies were like you. (meta: can you spot the error/flaw in that claim?)
Wait, did this bother you? I crossed off "disproved" because I agree and think you were right that "disproved" was really not the right word, and it was incorrect for me to be using it.
> It is bad epistemology, and it is also literally false. *Even the hallucinatory, insular institution of The Science* acknowledges that benefits of religion and prayer *can even be measured*.
I get the impression that you're really passionate about things, and keep thinking I'm someone I'm not, that I argue for things that I don't, etc. Did you see I put "no efficacy of prayer" in quotes? Remember, I'm not an atheist.
> Consider how likely it is that you've reached a state of pure rationality now.
Pretty low, as I've written and implied throughout this blog. Indeed, I'm not a rationalist; though I'm adjacent to that crowd, I'm pretty critical of rationalism.
> you are extremely rare in the amount of verbal abuse you can take
Well OK then! You do have at least some sense of me. I still think it's surprising that you refer to me as a Normie, but who knows, maybe that's become accurate after long years swimming against the current.
> You are fun to talk to, the world would be a better place if more Normies were like you. (meta: can you spot the error/flaw in that claim?)
Frankly you seem to run so hot that it's not easy for me to tell whether there is some implication there that I'm missing. But taking it at face value, there are a few flaws I can think of that you might mean:
* We aren't talking, we're writing,
* If more Normies were fun to talk to, that wouldn't necessarily solve any problems,
* There may not be a linear relationship between being like me and being fun to talk to.
IDK, why am I answering this particular question; just to amuse you?
> Wait, did this bother you? I crossed off "disproved" because I agree and think you were right that "disproved" was really not the right word
Yes, because the new word also has a problem: "show that (a belief or hypothesis) is not or MAY not be true."
> and it was incorrect for me to be using it.
Herein lies the problem: your culture defines incorrectness to be correct, and correctness (my complaint here) to be incorrect.
> I get the impression that you're really passionate about things
I am.
> and keep thinking I'm someone I'm not
I'm well familiar with theory of mind.
> that I argue for things that I don't, etc.
The problem is in your language/culture.
> Did you see I put "no efficacy of prayer" in quotes?
Putting something in quotes does not remove the chance for misinformativeness....a lot of people believe THAT IT IS LITERALLY TRUE that prayer has no efficacy!
> Remember, I'm not an atheist.
Well you talk like one.
>> Consider how likely it is that you've reached a state of pure rationality now.
> Pretty low, as I've written and implied throughout this blog. Indeed, I'm not a rationalist; though I'm adjacent to that crowd, I'm pretty critical of rationalism.
Right - so might this be reflected int he accuracy of your criticisms?
Humans like to criticize other humans, but do not like to be criticized themselves as they engage in that activity. This seems unfair to me.
> I still think it's surprising that you refer to me as a Normie
All humans are Normies, it is only a question of in what ways and to what degree.
> On the other hand, is this really the kind of thing Normies are saying these days?
Some!
> If more Normies were fun to talk to, that wouldn't necessarily solve any problems
Close but not quite - individual problems may be solved, but that wouldn't necessarily result in a net better world.
> IDK, why am I answering this particular question; just to amuse you?
I've been considering the woke turn recently in light of the same movement historically in protestantism into puritainism, a doctrinal double-downing (re-intensifying). I strongly suspect it is a teenager disposition. The whole pronoun thing seems like this to me. That time of growth when brains are changing and engaging environment they cannot change...
the feathering of 70s androgeneity into a set reading list of pronoun liturgies, which would be okay except for the aggro I've seen some 'kids today'.
having said that wokeness is not a big thing here in Tasmania/Australia partly because anti-wokeness has been imported ahead of it, the same happened with political correctness in the 90s or whenever it was, of course the importers still cry foul about it if I say this, but really the anit-woke peeps are the ones importing woke here, otherwise they would have to beat-up some other scare
I think the turn turn to strongman politics is also a teenager thing, like comic book superhero wish fulfilment, the brain changes but some never grow up (See reality principle)
generally your position is very close to neo-Pyrrhonism, it just lacks soteriological foci
before woke and political correctness there was ideologically correct (70s/80s) like the poor and empires it is always with us, …. …. it was about 1990… —I was modelling for a life drawing class in northern Tasmania, as they drew me, we were discussing the then recent fall of the Berlin Wall… a student a little older than me says, "yes, but they have had a social revolution…" it is hard for me to transcribe what he meant by this these days, but he was away with the fairies... he believed the fiction of the proletariat as strongman, it was a this moment I knew I was never going to be anyone's party man, he could draw but
Some people should pay more attention, then. Or is rape and murder OK when Palestinians do it? Israel has offered peace plans several times over the decades, only for the Palestinians to reject it every single time. Meanwhile, the Palestinians play "Death to the Jews" every day, in the schoolbooks, in their ripoff of Sesame Street, etc, etc., etc.
Oh! I wondered where you fell on this issue. My personal sense is that genocidal sesame street, suicide attacks, launching attacks on hospitals, and bombing inhabited cities makes neither side particularly sympathetic. My prepubescent children occasionally squabble too; at least they'll grow up someday.
Perhaps it's just me, but I strongly suspect that the Israelis wouldn't attack hospitals if the Palestinians didn't use them as military bases.
I also react very negatively to anyone who paint themselves as the inheritors of Gandhi and simultaneously justifies bombings, assassinations, rape, and murder, and has done so for over 50 years.
All in all, I'm not the biggest fan of the Israelis, but the Palestinians are just really, really awful.
> the Israelis wouldn't attack hospitals if the Palestinians didn't use them as military bases.
Oh, sure; but if that's the logic we're supposed to be using, don't we notice that Palestinians were there first, and then just blame Israelis for everything?
Yes, one of the best of classic XKCD, back from when before it jumped the shark: https://xkcd.com/1357/
There's a general tendency for rationalists in general to follow this trajectory; they like to think of themselves as something like "grey tribe" which is definitely distinct from blue tribe... but you're not a tribe without reproduction, and grey dates and marries blue.
"... predictable result: 1 C more warming in the CO2 bin over the control bin."
What I want to know, is that replicable? 😉🙂
More generally, interesting essay, though you might reflect on a marvelous, if damning bit of analysis by Mark Twain on "corn pone opinions":
"Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals."
Did Mr. Twain reveal the quantitative value for the degree to which his "truth" is actually true?
The irony that results when certain topics are discussed boggles the mind.
And Paul Graham is a typical bigshot silicon valley egomaniac who happened to be in the right place at the right time in history, and mistakes his extreme success for extreme intelligence/competency. And on top of it, his company runs Hacker News, one of the most powerful concentrations for the development and spread of overconfident delusion in our society. An excellent argument could be made that Hacker News very well may be the single most potent (and therefore dangerous) concentration of weaponized hallucination on our planet. I may even make that argument at some point in the future.
Most definitely not; that was a unique and extremely time-consuming attempt to question something rather obvious: namely, the similarity of CO2 to SiO2 in transmitting visible but absorbing infrared light, which has already been published extensively elsewhere.
> Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence.
> It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God.
There must be something that I don't understand, because, those kinds of arguments seem quite damning of democracy, and yet, democracy in application is no worse than most political systems.
I'll also say that there is something deeper, and stranger, than the importance of party loyalty or where one gets one's corn pone, when it comes to explaining people's inability to understand the obvious. Demonstrations of our ability to mix red from magenta and yellow - and the impossibility of using the same process to mix purple from blue and red - returns the same dogmatic rejection that we observe in, say, woke intellectuals when observing the sex-stereotyped behaviors of infants, or fundamentalists shown the conflicting genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. Nobody gets their corn pone by RYB color theorists. But people are just so far adrift without the familiar rainbow that they have no idea what could possibly be going on, and their eyes - along with the nice man standing before them with his strange experiments - must surely be deceiving them.
> There must be something that I don't understand, because, those kinds of arguments seem quite damning of democracy, and yet, democracy in application is no worse than most political systems.
You are engaging in speculative reductionism.
An excellent argument similar to the one about Hacker News above could be made about Democracy....and, I may even make that argument at some point in the future.
Apple: "... those kinds of arguments seem quite damning of democracy ..."
Don't think democracies are immune to mob behaviour -- kind of the nature of the beast, of the "raw material". ICYMI, you might want to read Charles Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds". A relevant quote:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."
Never did figure out quite exactly what you were getting at there. Seemed to be related to some differences in various theories on subtractive and additive colouring schemes, but didn't have much time for anything beyond that.
Apple: "... sex-stereotyped behaviors of infants ..."
Moot of course where those stereotypes come from -- generally not cut from whole cloth as I think we agreed before. You may have some interest in my further efforts to put gender on something of a scientific footing by arguing in favour of a "multi-dimensional gender spectrum", at least a two dimensional one:
Of particular note there is this "joint probability distribution" of sex-related traits -- basically 3 of the Big Five on one horizontal axis -- versus trait value on the other one:
I'd tried -- through some email exchanges -- to get various attendees at the "Santa Fe Boys" Conference on Sex and Gender to consider that perspective:
Even managed to rope-in "philosopher" Alex Byrne at one point. But the problem is that virtually every last one of them has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both sex and gender, and none seemed much willing to reach any sort of consensus as to differences in the terms. Not terribly impressed with any of them.
Yeah, I'd read it -- even left a comment or two there; you may wish to re-read them, particularly the quotes of George Boole, and of my travails with Warby and Dale -- a couple of philosophical illiterates, being charitable.
But, not to give you (too much of) a hard time, I kinda think that you might consider -- particularly given that you have a couple of young kids yourself -- that the butchering of dysphoric children is of more import than the niceties of different theories of colour mixing.
Apropos of which you might take gander at Jesse Singal's latest on the toxic claptrap trap transwoman Andrea Long "Chew" is peddling:
“We must be prepared to defend the idea that, in principle, everyone should have access to sex-changing medical care, regardless of age, gender identity, social environment, or psychiatric history,” argues Chu.
Arguably the roots of that clusterfuck starts from the fact that virtually no one has a flaming clue about the difference between sex -- i.e., the ability to produce either large or small gametes -- and gender -- i.e., various sexually dimorphic personality traits that correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with our sexes.
> “We must be prepared to defend the idea that, in principle, everyone should have access to sex-changing medical care, regardless of age, gender identity, social environment, or psychiatric history,” argues Chu.
As the late great Yogi Berra (allegedly) said:
"In theory (principle) there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is."
> But, not to give you (too much of) a hard time, I kinda think that you might consider -- particularly given that you have a couple of young kids yourself -- that the butchering of dysphoric children is of more import than the niceties of different theories of colour mixing.
What you describe as butchery is a question of value. Whether it is possible to mix red from yellow and magenta is a question of fact.
Given the ethical, political, and emotional nature of transgender issues, It's understandable that people might find them contentious. But there is *nothing* contentious about our color vision. Mixing red from yellow and magenta is something my young kids can do, regardless of whether they've had their genders surgically affirmed by nefarious agents in the medical establishment. Yet huge swaths of the population - people with fully trichromatic vision - cannot even wrap their minds around color mixing! Maybe someday I'll take a crack at the current surgical fads, Steersman, but until then, you'll find me on the swings.
> "... cannot even wrap their minds around color mixing! ..."
I'm sure you think that's the neatest thing since sliced bread. 😉🙂 And I can kind of sympathize -- Laplace transforms kind of do it for me. 🙂 But I expect that doesn't cut a lot of ice -- directly or indirectly -- in the lives of most people. As opposed to "transgender issues" which probably does.
> "... Maybe someday I'll take a crack at the current surgical fads ..."
Should you find the time and inclination I'd certainly appreciate hearing your thoughts on those "joint probability distributions". 🙂 Kind of think a greater understanding of that perspective is an essential precursor to unhorsing many of the more dogmatic if not demented peddlers of transgender ideology.
Kind of think I was rather clear in emphasizing that that was relative to the various theories on colour mixing, and not on the philosophy -- which I'd addressed in a comment or two on the post in question.
> The idea that Biden knows more than I do is, well, pretty funny.
This line almost deserves an entire post of its own, and you could even loop in all of the administration and its "experts" (oh how magical of a word this is) for extra emphasis/lulz. I may even be willing to collaborate with you on it if we could work on it over some period of time, and you did not associate me in any way with the resulting post..
Interesting. Unfortunately I doubt I could contribute too much, but if you're really serious, send me an email.
> And yet the idea that PEOPLE CAN IMPROVE!!! in this regard is something I see disproven very regularly.
What you go on to list is in no way a disproof.
> Longtime readers may know I’m an agnostic who doesn’t care for skeptical atheism. Yes, I can understand why a person might like to think like a frequentist statistician, default to the null hypothesis, and say “There’s no clear evidence that God exists, therefore I do not believe in God.” But I don’t think it makes sense to default to the null hypothesis to begin with....
Like most people, you misunderstand the null hypothesis.
With some help from ChatGPT:
The null hypothesis is specifically applicable to the domain of statistical hypothesis testing, where it is used as a benchmark to evaluate the likelihood of observing the data under the assumption that there is no effect or difference between groups. For example, in a medical study comparing the efficacy of a new drug to a placebo, the null hypothesis might state that there is no difference in patient outcomes between the drug and placebo groups.
However, applying the concept of the null hypothesis to assert the truth or falsehood of a proposition outside of statistical testing is incorrect and confused. For instance, claiming that a philosophical assertion (e.g., "All humans have free will") is false by default because of the null hypothesis is a misuse of the concept. The null hypothesis does not provide a valid basis for determining the truth value of propositions in logic, philosophy, or general knowledge claims. Such assertions require evidence and logical argumentation to establish their validity, rather than a statistical default assumption.
> But there’s an even deeper problem here. A problem that relates to intellectual humility, our tendency to make mistakes, and the limits of human knowledge. The question about the nature and number of deities in our world....
There's an even deeper problem than this: reality is mostly a hallucination, but our fundamentalist Scientific Materialistic education system teaches us a simplistic and *literally incorrect* model of reality, asserting (incorrectly) that it is ~equal to the universe (the material realm *only*).
> I can understand a religious person feeling compelled to take a stand on this difficult question. For the most part, they’re not trying to reason objectively.
The same is true of rationalists, scientific materialists, etc.
There are some exceptions (me), and I am *deeply* religious.
> Instead, they’re acting under the idea that their feelings are informative about things that exist at a deeper level of reality.
Is this to say that there are no deeper levels of reality?
> We have very little influence on the way people around us think
It is not possible for you to know this with any sort of accuracy, for several different reasons (one of them being the culture you were raised in rendering you unable to think clearly).
> But unfortunately, people like us have very little ability to change anyone’s minds.
That may be true, but you Normies may be in luck: *I am not like you*.
I could go on, but I am short on time lol
> What you go on to list is in no way a disproof.
Fair - though I do have other reasons for swinging in the sunset that I didn't list.
> Like most people, you misunderstand the null hypothesis.
I've actually tutored students in statistics before, and pointed out that the choice of null hypothesis isn't always obvious. But it isn't a misuse of the null to say things like "No evidence for the efficacy of prayer;" or "no evidence for miraculous healing." Nor is it a misuse of the term frequentism to say that "A person reasons like a frequentist" when they say "God is just a type I error!" https://the-mouse-trap.com/2008/04/23/god-is-just-a-type-i-error/
> > I can understand a religious person feeling compelled to take a stand on this difficult question. For the most part, they’re not trying to reason objectively.
> The same is true of rationalists, scientific materialists, etc.
I don't think you're very familiar with the typical religious person, or the typical atheist. Research finds that both intelligence and analytical thinking increase as levels of belief drop. The relationship is most striking at the country level, where (for example) mathematics and science ability correlate around -.6 with religiosity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315461007_Students_in_countries_with_higher_levels_of_religiosity_perform_lower_in_science_and_mathematics
When I was a young, passionate Christian and unaware of this, it definitely seemed rather that the reverse was the case, given the amount of study and understanding required to grasp what the religion is about. I now realize most believers simply don't grasp what the religion is about; they just go to church and pray. Atheists understand religion better: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious
> That may be true, but you Normies may be in luck: *I am not like you*.
That is probably the first time in my life anyone ever called me a normie; I must be getting old!
> Fair - though I do have other reasons for swinging in the sunset that I didn't list.
You changed it to disconfirmed: "show that (a belief or hypothesis) is not or MAY not be true."
If you run an entire species on misinformative linguistic trickery like this, SHOULD IT BE SURPRISING THEY DON'T IMPROVE? This is the kind of shit The Experts do constantly, and why I hate them so.
> But it isn't a misuse of the null to say things like "No evidence for the efficacy of prayer;"
It is bad epistemology, and it is also literally false. *Even the hallucinatory, insular institution of The Science* acknowledges that benefits of religion and prayer *can even be measured*.
And, be careful: indeed you can say that "the null hypothesis says no causal relationship", if you *frame it* as such you are within the rules, but if you then state that *there is no* causal relationship, you are not within the dumbed down safe zone of statistics anymore, you are in the realm of logic and epistemology, and that is not allowed.
> Nor is it a misuse of the term frequentism to say that "A person reasons like a frequentist" when they say "God is just a type I error!"
Please explain what the word "just" is doing in that sentence.
Let's take it out and see how it looks: "God is a type I error!"
"A type I error occurs when in research when we reject the null hypothesis and erroneously state that the study found significant differences when there indeed was no difference. In other words, it is equivalent to saying that the groups or variables differ when, in fact, they do not or having false positives."
Like....what does this even mean? Or to make it easier: which of the many (contradictory) (layers of) meanings of "is" are you ascribing to the symbol in this context?
Or, how about the symbol "God"?
> I don't think you're very familiar with the typical religious person, or the typical atheist.
I'm not, *and neither are you*, because such a thing is impossible. You know what I do know quite a bit about though: Normies. They hallucinate, *constantly*, because that is how they are taught to think from day one, constantly, and even by the very best of our institutions: Science (as it is, including at the object level, which the faithful would have you believe "doesn't count" when referring to Science).
> Research finds that both intelligence and analytical thinking increase as levels of belief drop.
Research *suggests*. One thing I love about religious folks and scientific folks: most have a poor understanding of their respective scriptures.
Of course, I'm nitpicking to the point of disingenuousness here, I can appreciate that *in the aggregate* (ONLY), science cultists are more rational than religion cultists....but on an absolute scale, they are both highly delusional (and once again: their respective scriptures are not the only things being compared).
Note also in your study they are opining on *causality* - acknowledge the numerous other variables in play at the causal level, and you will(!) find that your (*implied but not explicitly asserted* cause & effect relationship) "facts" are an illusion.
> When I was a young, passionate Christian and unaware of this, it definitely seemed rather that the reverse was the case, given the amount of study and understanding required to grasp what the religion is about.
Consider how likely it is that you've reached a state of pure rationality now.
> I now realize most believers simply don't grasp what the religion is about; they just go to church and pray.
Here we agree, but guess what: the same is true of science's fan base (and scientists, *at least often*) - I argue with these people on a daily basis, it is literally my hobby. All humans are this way, it is an EXTREME violation of the "social overton window of behavior and cognition" to be otherwise.
> Atheists understand religion better: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious
Yet another error: equating understanding religion with memorization of the contents of the bible. This is incorrect in more than one way.
> That is probably the first time in my life anyone ever called me a normie; I must be getting old!
It is simply your training. All of you people are this way, you *cannot even try* to be otherwise....not really, not *currently*, extremely similar to how (and why) you are unable to juggle five balls: you have never tried to learn it, in no small part because your culture does not teach it (except it's even worse than that: if you did try to learn how to juggle, your culture wouldn't collectively attack you for the idea).
EDIT: I do have something nice to say about you though - you are extremely rare in the amount of verbal abuse you can take, and seem to have zero detectable (to me anyways) negative emotional reaction, but keep on grinding with *admittedly not bad* (on a relative scale anyways) arguments. I only recall meeting one other person like this (though, it wasn't entirely legitimate in that he knew I was playing a game....maybe you do too?). I am very lacking in this regard myself lol.
You are fun to talk to, the world would be a better place if more Normies were like you. (meta: can you spot the error/flaw in that claim?)
> You changed it to disconfirmed
Wait, did this bother you? I crossed off "disproved" because I agree and think you were right that "disproved" was really not the right word, and it was incorrect for me to be using it.
> It is bad epistemology, and it is also literally false. *Even the hallucinatory, insular institution of The Science* acknowledges that benefits of religion and prayer *can even be measured*.
I get the impression that you're really passionate about things, and keep thinking I'm someone I'm not, that I argue for things that I don't, etc. Did you see I put "no efficacy of prayer" in quotes? Remember, I'm not an atheist.
> Consider how likely it is that you've reached a state of pure rationality now.
Pretty low, as I've written and implied throughout this blog. Indeed, I'm not a rationalist; though I'm adjacent to that crowd, I'm pretty critical of rationalism.
> you are extremely rare in the amount of verbal abuse you can take
Well OK then! You do have at least some sense of me. I still think it's surprising that you refer to me as a Normie, but who knows, maybe that's become accurate after long years swimming against the current.
...On the other hand, is this really the kind of thing Normies are saying these days? https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/america-will-not-recover
> You are fun to talk to, the world would be a better place if more Normies were like you. (meta: can you spot the error/flaw in that claim?)
Frankly you seem to run so hot that it's not easy for me to tell whether there is some implication there that I'm missing. But taking it at face value, there are a few flaws I can think of that you might mean:
* We aren't talking, we're writing,
* If more Normies were fun to talk to, that wouldn't necessarily solve any problems,
* There may not be a linear relationship between being like me and being fun to talk to.
IDK, why am I answering this particular question; just to amuse you?
> Wait, did this bother you? I crossed off "disproved" because I agree and think you were right that "disproved" was really not the right word
Yes, because the new word also has a problem: "show that (a belief or hypothesis) is not or MAY not be true."
> and it was incorrect for me to be using it.
Herein lies the problem: your culture defines incorrectness to be correct, and correctness (my complaint here) to be incorrect.
> I get the impression that you're really passionate about things
I am.
> and keep thinking I'm someone I'm not
I'm well familiar with theory of mind.
> that I argue for things that I don't, etc.
The problem is in your language/culture.
> Did you see I put "no efficacy of prayer" in quotes?
Putting something in quotes does not remove the chance for misinformativeness....a lot of people believe THAT IT IS LITERALLY TRUE that prayer has no efficacy!
> Remember, I'm not an atheist.
Well you talk like one.
>> Consider how likely it is that you've reached a state of pure rationality now.
> Pretty low, as I've written and implied throughout this blog. Indeed, I'm not a rationalist; though I'm adjacent to that crowd, I'm pretty critical of rationalism.
Right - so might this be reflected int he accuracy of your criticisms?
Humans like to criticize other humans, but do not like to be criticized themselves as they engage in that activity. This seems unfair to me.
> I still think it's surprising that you refer to me as a Normie
All humans are Normies, it is only a question of in what ways and to what degree.
> On the other hand, is this really the kind of thing Normies are saying these days?
Some!
> If more Normies were fun to talk to, that wouldn't necessarily solve any problems
Close but not quite - individual problems may be solved, but that wouldn't necessarily result in a net better world.
> IDK, why am I answering this particular question; just to amuse you?
That's a good question!
I've been considering the woke turn recently in light of the same movement historically in protestantism into puritainism, a doctrinal double-downing (re-intensifying). I strongly suspect it is a teenager disposition. The whole pronoun thing seems like this to me. That time of growth when brains are changing and engaging environment they cannot change...
the feathering of 70s androgeneity into a set reading list of pronoun liturgies, which would be okay except for the aggro I've seen some 'kids today'.
having said that wokeness is not a big thing here in Tasmania/Australia partly because anti-wokeness has been imported ahead of it, the same happened with political correctness in the 90s or whenever it was, of course the importers still cry foul about it if I say this, but really the anit-woke peeps are the ones importing woke here, otherwise they would have to beat-up some other scare
I think the turn turn to strongman politics is also a teenager thing, like comic book superhero wish fulfilment, the brain changes but some never grow up (See reality principle)
https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-strongman-fantasy
generally your position is very close to neo-Pyrrhonism, it just lacks soteriological foci
before woke and political correctness there was ideologically correct (70s/80s) like the poor and empires it is always with us, …. …. it was about 1990… —I was modelling for a life drawing class in northern Tasmania, as they drew me, we were discussing the then recent fall of the Berlin Wall… a student a little older than me says, "yes, but they have had a social revolution…" it is hard for me to transcribe what he meant by this these days, but he was away with the fairies... he believed the fiction of the proletariat as strongman, it was a this moment I knew I was never going to be anyone's party man, he could draw but
Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/386/
Gaza before and after: Satellite images show destruction
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67241290
Some (there are not many of us, but there are some) people do not find death and destruction (and the underlying chain of causality) funny / trivial.
Some people should pay more attention, then. Or is rape and murder OK when Palestinians do it? Israel has offered peace plans several times over the decades, only for the Palestinians to reject it every single time. Meanwhile, the Palestinians play "Death to the Jews" every day, in the schoolbooks, in their ripoff of Sesame Street, etc, etc., etc.
Oh! I wondered where you fell on this issue. My personal sense is that genocidal sesame street, suicide attacks, launching attacks on hospitals, and bombing inhabited cities makes neither side particularly sympathetic. My prepubescent children occasionally squabble too; at least they'll grow up someday.
Perhaps it's just me, but I strongly suspect that the Israelis wouldn't attack hospitals if the Palestinians didn't use them as military bases.
I also react very negatively to anyone who paint themselves as the inheritors of Gandhi and simultaneously justifies bombings, assassinations, rape, and murder, and has done so for over 50 years.
All in all, I'm not the biggest fan of the Israelis, but the Palestinians are just really, really awful.
> the Israelis wouldn't attack hospitals if the Palestinians didn't use them as military bases.
Oh, sure; but if that's the logic we're supposed to be using, don't we notice that Palestinians were there first, and then just blame Israelis for everything?
The Israelis have the right of conquest. If that’s not an option anymore, then the Germans would like the territory they lost post WWII back.
Yes, one of the best of classic XKCD, back from when before it jumped the shark: https://xkcd.com/1357/
There's a general tendency for rationalists in general to follow this trajectory; they like to think of themselves as something like "grey tribe" which is definitely distinct from blue tribe... but you're not a tribe without reproduction, and grey dates and marries blue.
Oh that one infuriates me....another variation is hyper-confident people that think free speech and the first amendment are the same thing.
"... predictable result: 1 C more warming in the CO2 bin over the control bin."
What I want to know, is that replicable? 😉🙂
More generally, interesting essay, though you might reflect on a marvelous, if damning bit of analysis by Mark Twain on "corn pone opinions":
"Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals."
https://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
Tribalism writ large. But you might note that the blogger there has a name to conjure with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)
Did Mr. Twain reveal the quantitative value for the degree to which his "truth" is actually true?
The irony that results when certain topics are discussed boggles the mind.
And Paul Graham is a typical bigshot silicon valley egomaniac who happened to be in the right place at the right time in history, and mistakes his extreme success for extreme intelligence/competency. And on top of it, his company runs Hacker News, one of the most powerful concentrations for the development and spread of overconfident delusion in our society. An excellent argument could be made that Hacker News very well may be the single most potent (and therefore dangerous) concentration of weaponized hallucination on our planet. I may even make that argument at some point in the future.
"I may even make that argument at some point in the future."
Once you start publishing I might even subscribe just to see how you elaborate on that ... 😉🙂
As for Twain's "degree of truth", it seems Mackay's book gives some evidence in support of it. As do various "moral panics":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
> What I want to know, is that replicable? 😉🙂
Most definitely not; that was a unique and extremely time-consuming attempt to question something rather obvious: namely, the similarity of CO2 to SiO2 in transmitting visible but absorbing infrared light, which has already been published extensively elsewhere.
> https://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
> Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence.
> It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God.
There must be something that I don't understand, because, those kinds of arguments seem quite damning of democracy, and yet, democracy in application is no worse than most political systems.
I'll also say that there is something deeper, and stranger, than the importance of party loyalty or where one gets one's corn pone, when it comes to explaining people's inability to understand the obvious. Demonstrations of our ability to mix red from magenta and yellow - and the impossibility of using the same process to mix purple from blue and red - returns the same dogmatic rejection that we observe in, say, woke intellectuals when observing the sex-stereotyped behaviors of infants, or fundamentalists shown the conflicting genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. Nobody gets their corn pone by RYB color theorists. But people are just so far adrift without the familiar rainbow that they have no idea what could possibly be going on, and their eyes - along with the nice man standing before them with his strange experiments - must surely be deceiving them.
> There must be something that I don't understand, because, those kinds of arguments seem quite damning of democracy, and yet, democracy in application is no worse than most political systems.
You are engaging in speculative reductionism.
An excellent argument similar to the one about Hacker News above could be made about Democracy....and, I may even make that argument at some point in the future.
Apple: "... those kinds of arguments seem quite damning of democracy ..."
Don't think democracies are immune to mob behaviour -- kind of the nature of the beast, of the "raw material". ICYMI, you might want to read Charles Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds". A relevant quote:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/289693-men-it-has-been-well-said-think-in-herds-it
Apple: "... mix red from magenta and yellow ..."
Never did figure out quite exactly what you were getting at there. Seemed to be related to some differences in various theories on subtractive and additive colouring schemes, but didn't have much time for anything beyond that.
Apple: "... sex-stereotyped behaviors of infants ..."
Moot of course where those stereotypes come from -- generally not cut from whole cloth as I think we agreed before. You may have some interest in my further efforts to put gender on something of a scientific footing by arguing in favour of a "multi-dimensional gender spectrum", at least a two dimensional one:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/a-multi-dimensional-gender-spectrum
Of particular note there is this "joint probability distribution" of sex-related traits -- basically 3 of the Big Five on one horizontal axis -- versus trait value on the other one:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F28cbde88-8a9b-4b3b-8f48-a07f889f1019_769x379.jpeg
I'd tried -- through some email exchanges -- to get various attendees at the "Santa Fe Boys" Conference on Sex and Gender to consider that perspective:
https://santafeboys.org/recordings-of-the-big-conversation/
Even managed to rope-in "philosopher" Alex Byrne at one point. But the problem is that virtually every last one of them has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both sex and gender, and none seemed much willing to reach any sort of consensus as to differences in the terms. Not terribly impressed with any of them.
I don't have time for a more thorough reply but you should definitely at least skim over the first section of this, paying close attention to the video under "transmittance spectra" https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/what-colors-tell-us-about-philosophy
Yeah, I'd read it -- even left a comment or two there; you may wish to re-read them, particularly the quotes of George Boole, and of my travails with Warby and Dale -- a couple of philosophical illiterates, being charitable.
But, not to give you (too much of) a hard time, I kinda think that you might consider -- particularly given that you have a couple of young kids yourself -- that the butchering of dysphoric children is of more import than the niceties of different theories of colour mixing.
Apropos of which you might take gander at Jesse Singal's latest on the toxic claptrap trap transwoman Andrea Long "Chew" is peddling:
“We must be prepared to defend the idea that, in principle, everyone should have access to sex-changing medical care, regardless of age, gender identity, social environment, or psychiatric history,” argues Chu.
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/andrea-long-chus-new-york-cover-story?utm_medium=reader2
Arguably the roots of that clusterfuck starts from the fact that virtually no one has a flaming clue about the difference between sex -- i.e., the ability to produce either large or small gametes -- and gender -- i.e., various sexually dimorphic personality traits that correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with our sexes.
> “We must be prepared to defend the idea that, in principle, everyone should have access to sex-changing medical care, regardless of age, gender identity, social environment, or psychiatric history,” argues Chu.
As the late great Yogi Berra (allegedly) said:
"In theory (principle) there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is."
> But, not to give you (too much of) a hard time, I kinda think that you might consider -- particularly given that you have a couple of young kids yourself -- that the butchering of dysphoric children is of more import than the niceties of different theories of colour mixing.
What you describe as butchery is a question of value. Whether it is possible to mix red from yellow and magenta is a question of fact.
Given the ethical, political, and emotional nature of transgender issues, It's understandable that people might find them contentious. But there is *nothing* contentious about our color vision. Mixing red from yellow and magenta is something my young kids can do, regardless of whether they've had their genders surgically affirmed by nefarious agents in the medical establishment. Yet huge swaths of the population - people with fully trichromatic vision - cannot even wrap their minds around color mixing! Maybe someday I'll take a crack at the current surgical fads, Steersman, but until then, you'll find me on the swings.
> "What you describe as butchery is a question of value ..."
If you wanted to look at some pictures then I think I could probably disabuse you of that notion. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bV8AaeYKjQ
> "... cannot even wrap their minds around color mixing! ..."
I'm sure you think that's the neatest thing since sliced bread. 😉🙂 And I can kind of sympathize -- Laplace transforms kind of do it for me. 🙂 But I expect that doesn't cut a lot of ice -- directly or indirectly -- in the lives of most people. As opposed to "transgender issues" which probably does.
> "... Maybe someday I'll take a crack at the current surgical fads ..."
Should you find the time and inclination I'd certainly appreciate hearing your thoughts on those "joint probability distributions". 🙂 Kind of think a greater understanding of that perspective is an essential precursor to unhorsing many of the more dogmatic if not demented peddlers of transgender ideology.
Steersman's "Never did figure out quite exactly… "
lol
Kind of think I was rather clear in emphasizing that that was relative to the various theories on colour mixing, and not on the philosophy -- which I'd addressed in a comment or two on the post in question.
no really directed at you... an in-joke