"Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human ingenuity, capitalist productivity, and the enjoyment of life. Yet all of these are castigated as "materialistic"; the real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously."
-Leonard Peikoff
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
still more proof that people are idiots
So, I got this hilarious anonymous comment on my third-to-last post, which unintentionally supports my point, once again, that people can't do logic. The poster states that the statement "Colds cause ear infections" implies that a cold is the only thing that causes ear infections. I HOPE all of you can see that this is not the case. If we replace "Driving" with "Getting your head chopped off" in the poster's example, then, according to the poster, the statement "Getting your head chopped off causes you to die" is false because there are other ways to die. In fact, if A causes B, it does not mean that B is only caused by A. For instance, rain causes things to be wet, that anonymous post caused me to laugh, chicken pox causes itching.
The issue is not whether colds, in fact, cause ear infections. The issue is that the text of the article, which was supposed to show why colds do not cause ear infections, actually said that they do cause ear infections.
The "crap" and the end of my original post is a symbolic derivation of "everyone is an idiot and can't do logic" from the premises given by the article, and I put it there for the benefit of anyone who has taken a logic class in school.
Finally, a couple corrections. I am not a statistician, unless you mean that I know things about statistics and have taken statistics classes and use statistical tools in my job, which I do and have. Secondly, this has nothing to do with correlation vs. causation. Correlation between two events means that the two events occur in a regular relationship to one another. For instance, two events that frequently occur together and rarely occur apart are highly correlated. This has nothing to do with my post. While it is true that ear infections and colds are highly correlated in children, I was obviously not trying to derive a causation relationship from this fact. I was analyzing statements made in the article, not drawing my own conclusions about ear infections from any data. Mistaking correlation for causation means seeing that two things occur together and assuming one causes the other, when they might both independently be caused by unrelated parts of some third event. My post had to do with people not understanding that when an event causes a chain of events that produces some effect, that first event, in fact, causes the final one. As long as each step in the chain has a causal relationship to the next, the first has a causal relationship to the last.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. I am NOT saying anything about the relationship between colds and ear infections. I am saying something about an article.
The issue is not whether colds, in fact, cause ear infections. The issue is that the text of the article, which was supposed to show why colds do not cause ear infections, actually said that they do cause ear infections.
The "crap" and the end of my original post is a symbolic derivation of "everyone is an idiot and can't do logic" from the premises given by the article, and I put it there for the benefit of anyone who has taken a logic class in school.
Finally, a couple corrections. I am not a statistician, unless you mean that I know things about statistics and have taken statistics classes and use statistical tools in my job, which I do and have. Secondly, this has nothing to do with correlation vs. causation. Correlation between two events means that the two events occur in a regular relationship to one another. For instance, two events that frequently occur together and rarely occur apart are highly correlated. This has nothing to do with my post. While it is true that ear infections and colds are highly correlated in children, I was obviously not trying to derive a causation relationship from this fact. I was analyzing statements made in the article, not drawing my own conclusions about ear infections from any data. Mistaking correlation for causation means seeing that two things occur together and assuming one causes the other, when they might both independently be caused by unrelated parts of some third event. My post had to do with people not understanding that when an event causes a chain of events that produces some effect, that first event, in fact, causes the final one. As long as each step in the chain has a causal relationship to the next, the first has a causal relationship to the last.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. I am NOT saying anything about the relationship between colds and ear infections. I am saying something about an article.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
1 = 100
Verizon customer service employees, including managers, do not know the difference between .002 dollars and .002 cents. According to one, the difference is "a matter of opinion."
http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/12/8721/
http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/12/8721/
Friday, December 08, 2006
more proof that everyone is an idiot and can't do logic
First, we have this article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/12/07/par.sick.myths/index.html
It is listing common myths about kids' health, and the reality of the situation. Most of them are fine, but then you get to the last one:
So this section says:
"myth: A->D. reality: A->B, B->C, C->D"
I will use these two premises to prove that everyone is an idiot and can't do logic.
Let "T" represent "everyone is an idiot and can't do logic"
~(A->D). A->B. B->C. C->D. :. T
1 Show T..............................."show conc"
2 ~T.......................................ass id
3 P^~S .................................pr1 nc
4 P ........................................3 sl
5 Q .......................................4 pr2 mp
6 R .......................................5 pr3 mp
7 S ........................................6 pr4 mp
8 ~S .....................................3 sr
9 ...........................................7 8 id
Line 9 boxes and cancels line 1, meaning we have shown T.
QED.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/12/07/par.sick.myths/index.html
It is listing common myths about kids' health, and the reality of the situation. Most of them are fine, but then you get to the last one:
Colds cause ear infections
The truth: It does seem that way, but all colds are caused by viruses, while 90 percent of ear infections are caused by bacteria. So, why does your child seem to get an ear infection every time he has a cold? "Colds create mucus and fluid buildup in the ear tubes -- a perfect environment for ear infection -- causing bacteria to grow," says Ari Brown, M.D., coauthor of "Toddler 411: Clear Answers and Smart Advice for Your Toddler."
The part labled "the truth" says that colds cause ear infections. The quote from the doctor says colds cause mucus and fluid buildup, causing bacteria to grow. That is, colds cause mucus and fluid, mucus and fluid causes bacteria to grow, and bacteria causes colds.So this section says:
"myth: A->D. reality: A->B, B->C, C->D"
I will use these two premises to prove that everyone is an idiot and can't do logic.
Let "T" represent "everyone is an idiot and can't do logic"
~(A->D). A->B. B->C. C->D. :. T
1 Show T..............................."show conc"
2 ~T.......................................ass id
3 P^~S .................................pr1 nc
4 P ........................................3 sl
5 Q .......................................4 pr2 mp
6 R .......................................5 pr3 mp
7 S ........................................6 pr4 mp
8 ~S .....................................3 sr
9 ...........................................7 8 id
Line 9 boxes and cancels line 1, meaning we have shown T.
QED.
Monday, December 04, 2006
tech support
The computers at my office always give errors when a web page contains javascript code. One of my projects at work contains a js search engine which is fully functional on my home computer. At work, the errors cause it to not work. Below is my conversation with the guy who came over from the help desk to look at it.
me: There is a problem with the network computers that causes errors in javascript code. See, when I go to foxnews.com, I get a javascript error. When I try to use this javascript search engine that I programmed, I get a javascript error. I don't get these errors on my home computer, only the work computers.
tech guy: well, we can't really debug people's code.
me: it's not a problem with my code. it's probably something with the js engine installed on these machines. the code works just fine at home.
tech guy: well, i can't debug your code. you're not even supposed to be writing code, that's technology's job.
me: no, i don't need you to debug my code. my code is fine. there is some other error that is causing problems with my code as well as all other javascript code on other web pages. *pulls up foxnews.com again to demonstrate*
tech guy: i don't think you understand. it's not our job to debug code. if you want some programming done, you can submit a work order to technology.
me: look. here is the thing i programmed. see the error? now here is foxnews.com. see how it gives the same error? neither of these errors happen on my home computer. the problem is with the computer, not with my code or foxnews.com's code. *points to coworker* he gets these errors on web pages all the time.
coworker: yeah, it happens all the time, like on foxnews.com.
tech guy, clearly annoyed: i don't know what to tell you. we can't debug code.
me: okay, look. let's pretend that i never programmed that search engine, okay? no search engine. the search engine does not exist.
tech guy: okay.
me: and now, i'm going to foxnews.com. (error pops up) oh look! what is this error? why is that happening?
tech guy: *peers at the screen* That's weird. I'll have someone take a look at that error.
me: *smacks forehead*
me: There is a problem with the network computers that causes errors in javascript code. See, when I go to foxnews.com, I get a javascript error. When I try to use this javascript search engine that I programmed, I get a javascript error. I don't get these errors on my home computer, only the work computers.
tech guy: well, we can't really debug people's code.
me: it's not a problem with my code. it's probably something with the js engine installed on these machines. the code works just fine at home.
tech guy: well, i can't debug your code. you're not even supposed to be writing code, that's technology's job.
me: no, i don't need you to debug my code. my code is fine. there is some other error that is causing problems with my code as well as all other javascript code on other web pages. *pulls up foxnews.com again to demonstrate*
tech guy: i don't think you understand. it's not our job to debug code. if you want some programming done, you can submit a work order to technology.
me: look. here is the thing i programmed. see the error? now here is foxnews.com. see how it gives the same error? neither of these errors happen on my home computer. the problem is with the computer, not with my code or foxnews.com's code. *points to coworker* he gets these errors on web pages all the time.
coworker: yeah, it happens all the time, like on foxnews.com.
tech guy, clearly annoyed: i don't know what to tell you. we can't debug code.
me: okay, look. let's pretend that i never programmed that search engine, okay? no search engine. the search engine does not exist.
tech guy: okay.
me: and now, i'm going to foxnews.com. (error pops up) oh look! what is this error? why is that happening?
tech guy: *peers at the screen* That's weird. I'll have someone take a look at that error.
me: *smacks forehead*
Human Instincts
Some people believe that humans have no instincts. I find this rather curious, particularly coming from people who also believe in evolution rather than creationism as the origin of human life.
If humans have no instincts, it means one of three things must be true:
1. The species in the human chain of evolution prior to the development of a rational faculty had no instincts.
2. Once the rational faculty developed, all instincts that this group of organisms previously had suddenly vanished.
3. All human instincts have evolved out of the human population.
2 is false for obvious reasons: characteristics of a population can't suddenly disappear all at once. They have to be selected out of the population. 1 is equally silly: instincts are that which allows organisms to survive in the absence of a rational faculty. These pre-reason "humans" would have been dead in five minutes. 3 is the only one that deserves any consideration, but not much. Population characteristics can only disappear from a population if they are selected against. This means that individuals who have certain characteristics either die at a higher rate or produce offspring at a lower rate than those individuals who lack these characteristics. It is impossible that every instinct posessed by pre-reason "humans" has been selected against to such a degree that it has disappeared from the population.
Therefore, humans must have instincts. This seems very very obvious to me, so if anyone knows of some 4th alternative or something that I missed, please tell me.
If humans have no instincts, it means one of three things must be true:
1. The species in the human chain of evolution prior to the development of a rational faculty had no instincts.
2. Once the rational faculty developed, all instincts that this group of organisms previously had suddenly vanished.
3. All human instincts have evolved out of the human population.
2 is false for obvious reasons: characteristics of a population can't suddenly disappear all at once. They have to be selected out of the population. 1 is equally silly: instincts are that which allows organisms to survive in the absence of a rational faculty. These pre-reason "humans" would have been dead in five minutes. 3 is the only one that deserves any consideration, but not much. Population characteristics can only disappear from a population if they are selected against. This means that individuals who have certain characteristics either die at a higher rate or produce offspring at a lower rate than those individuals who lack these characteristics. It is impossible that every instinct posessed by pre-reason "humans" has been selected against to such a degree that it has disappeared from the population.
Therefore, humans must have instincts. This seems very very obvious to me, so if anyone knows of some 4th alternative or something that I missed, please tell me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)