U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2016, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
However data is applicable only for the data source. Your concept would be correct if there were only 2 people. but to project beyond those 2 people you are going beyond the measured population. In your example the introduction of one more person will skew the curve unless the third person happens to be 5 and a half feet tall.

It is very rare for accurate and relevent data to result in a Bell curve.


The Bell Curve and Assigning Grades

by Rick Yount | 06.30.11 | Called to Teach, Teacher Training


The bell curve is to education what the rack is to interrogation.
Both produce unreliable measures of truth.

Jason Norris wrote me yesterday in response to my post “The Dark Side of Education: Testing”. Of immediate interest was my comment on the (abusive) use of a Bell curve in grading. Specifically he asked me to elaborate on this statement: “Teaching, like counseling, is a . . .

. . . direct intervention. The best result, in teaching or counseling, finds everyone excelling.”

Here’s the excerpt he cited:

A student averages a 96% on four course exams, but earns a D in the course, because many students in the course scored better than he did. The grading scale for that semester, given at the end of the semester, was 99% (A), 98% (B), 97% (C), 96% (D) and less than 96% (F). Simple fairness dictated that every student should have received an A. Were the exams too easy, or did the students excel? If the former, the professor should have awarded As to all students and re-written the exams for the next semester. If the latter, the students deserved As. Adherence to an arbitrary distribution of grades (A-F) is sinful, especially when the grade point equivalents are determined after the grades are earned! [2]
….
[2] The faulty reasoning goes like this: there should be few but equal numbers of As and Fs, more but equal numbers of Bs and Ds, and the most falling in the middle with Cs. This is considered “fair.” Let’s apply this evaluation standard to, say, counseling. There should be few but equal numbers of clients who overcome their problems and those who commit suicide, more but equal numbers of clients who get better, and get worse, and finally most clients who fall in the middle: they stay the same. Of course this is nonsense.
The Bell Curve and Assigning Grades | Dr. Rick Yount
The Principles of the Bell Curve are well recognized in Statistics.
As I mentioned I am aware of the potentials, advantages and limitations of Statistics.


I understand there are many who abused or used the readings of the Bell Curve wrongly and this could depend on how they collect and analyze their data, and their intentions.
This is why Statistical results must never be accepted at face values for any critical decisions.

However there are many who has used the Bell Curve for many positive results.

Here is one point where the Bell Curve is useful;
The curve is quite accurate at differentiating between student abilities when used in large classes, that is, classes with 200 students or more. There is nothing really remarkable about this fact; all statistical methods are more accurate when the sample size is increased. (The cream of the crop rise to the top)
https://cubelogger.wordpress.com/201...-a-bell-curve/


Note how accuracy of statistical models correlate with large sample size.
In the case of humans, we are dealing with 7+ billion, ant that population is large enough to obtain a large sample size. When I infer the above 7+ billion to 1.5 billion Muslims, the population is still large enough.


I stated 20% of humans [including Muslims] are prone to commit evil of various degrees.
Note 'various and range of degrees' [from very low to very high] is critical in this point.
Lying is an evil deed, albeit of lower degree.
Do you think my hypothesis that at least 20% of people are vulnerable to lying is possible?
I think this is very possible, do you agree.


Of course if I refer to criminal "killing" another human, then the % would be lesser, perhaps 2%.


Thus my point,
'20% of all humans thus including 20% of all Muslims are prone to commit evil of a range of degrees' do reflect the reality of humanity.
Agree?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-23-2016, 11:39 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,888,137 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It is based on a very conservative inference and estimation based on the Principles of the Bell Curve.


Here is an example of estimation by inference.
(Assuming no exceptional skewness)
Say the shortest adult human is 3 feet.
The tallest is 8 feet.
The average height is 5 and a half feet.
From the above facts and Principles of the Bell Curve, I can estimated at least 20% of humans are likely to be below 4.2 feet.


I don't think I would be very far from the truth with my estimation.


I have done the same with a distribution of all adults humans who good and evil thus applicable to all Muslims.
I said my estimation is very conservative as one will note in many polls there are many instances of more than 20% and up to 60% Muslim supporting the various negatives/evils of Islam.
This is perhaps the worst statistical understanding I have ever seen put forth by someone who claims to know something about statistics. A bell curve distribution doesn't imply a linear distribution. It only suggests that the distribution is symmetrical, and that a certain percentage of samples will lie within a given number of standard deviations from the mean (68% of samples will lie within one SD, 95% within two, 98% within three). It doesn't imply anything about what the standard deviation is, and as a result, it doesn't in any way make claims about a linear distribution.

Your own results show the absurdity of your reasoning: 1 in 5 adult humans is not under 4.2 feet! I assume you are referring to adults because you said the shortest is 3 feet, which wouldn't be true for kids.

It's easy to demonstrate your faulty reasoning using IQ: The average IQ is 100, and there are humans who have IQs slightly over 200. Let's take 200 as the max IQ, for convenience. By your reasoning, 25% of humans should have an IQ over 150 (the mean is 100, the max is 200, thus 150 is the 75% mark). That is of course miles from the truth. Only about 1 in 2,000 people have an IQ over 150. Seriously: Your reasoning suggested that 1 in 4 would have an IQ of 150, but in reality, only 1 in 2,000 do.

As I said, you are grossly misunderstanding the statistical concept of the bell curve.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The Principles of the Bell Curve are well recognized in Statistics.
As I mentioned I am aware of the potentials, advantages and limitations of Statistics.


I understand there are many who abused or used the readings of the Bell Curve wrongly and this could depend on how they collect and analyze their data, and their intentions.
This is why Statistical results must never be accepted at face values for any critical decisions.

However there are many who has used the Bell Curve for many positive results.

Here is one point where the Bell Curve is useful;
The curve is quite accurate at differentiating between student abilities when used in large classes, that is, classes with 200 students or more. There is nothing really remarkable about this fact; all statistical methods are more accurate when the sample size is increased. (The cream of the crop rise to the top)
https://cubelogger.wordpress.com/201...-a-bell-curve/


Note how accuracy of statistical models correlate with large sample size.
In the case of humans, we are dealing with 7+ billion, ant that population is large enough to obtain a large sample size. When I infer the above 7+ billion to 1.5 billion Muslims, the population is still large enough.


I stated 20% of humans [including Muslims] are prone to commit evil of various degrees.
Note 'various and range of degrees' [from very low to very high] is critical in this point.
Lying is an evil deed, albeit of lower degree.
Do you think my hypothesis that at least 20% of people are vulnerable to lying is possible?
I think this is very possible, do you agree.


Of course if I refer to criminal "killing" another human, then the % would be lesser, perhaps 2%.


Thus my point,
'20% of all humans thus including 20% of all Muslims are prone to commit evil of a range of degrees' do reflect the reality of humanity.
Agree?
1. I believe you are confusing the statistical concept of the bell curve with the book The Bell Curve. The concept of the bell curve is basic elementary statistics -- it is not controversial in any way. The book is about far more than simply the concept of the bell curve.

2. Bell curve analysis is of course more useful for large sample sizes than small sample sizes -- this is true for any statistical analysis. However, you are making some unwarranted leaps in your reasoning (see #3).

3. Here is your error: In order to draw the conclusion that 20% of Muslims are prone to violence, you would need actual data on the number of Muslims who are prone to violence. Actual, empirical data. Saying that it follows a bell curve isn't useful because you don't know what the standard deviation of violence proclivity is.

4. You are making grand conclusions based on bad misunderstanding combined with unwarranted confidence. This is a bad combination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2016, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461
As I have replied in the same in another post, I believe your view is shortsighted, i.e.


1. I did not state I applied linearity in this case.
2. Your 1 in 5 is based on your observation of a narrow population in the Western World
3. I have ignored Standard Deviation for simplicity sake.


Note my detail explanation in this post;
http://www.city-data.com/forum/43123628-post14.html




Obviously actual data is much better than no data.
Without data, one can do an intelligent guess based on whatever data is available and using various techniques.
I qualified this 20% is based on my best estimation and a distribution of the human variable using Principles of the Bell Curve.


My definition of 'evil' is any act or thought that is regarded as immoral and net negative to the individual, group and humanity.
Note my reference to "evil" is based on a range of evil [from low to high].
For example 'lying' is a low level evil, nevertheless it is still 'evil'.


My guess is 80% of human beings have the tendency to lie [a low level evil], deliberately, spontaneously or unconsciously.
Here are some numbers;
According to a 2002 study conducted by the University of Massachusetts, 60% of adults canít have a ten minute conversation without lying at least once.
60% of People Can't Go 10 Minutes Without Lying | Mental Floss


What percentage of the population lies?

Virtually everybody.
Dan Ariely is a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University. He and his fascinating research on dishonesty are featured in the documentary, "Dishonesty, The Truth About Lies,"
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/27/

I don't think you have much to dispute on the above, i.e. the evil [low degree] of lying.
Within lying there is the serious kind of lying and the not so serious like white lies.


Therefore my assertion,
20% of all humans are evil prone [has a tendency to commit evil] is very conservative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 11:38 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,888,137 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
As I have replied in the same in another post, I believe your view is shortsighted, i.e.


1. I did not state I applied linearity in this case.
Your math was linear. If the mean height is 5.5 feet and the shortest height is 3 feet, the only way you could deduce that 20% of the population is below 4.2 feet is if you are assuming that height is distributed linearly. Bell curve distributions don't imply linear distributions, and they typically aren't linear. In fact, that is why they are called bell curve distributions rather than triangular distributions. See my example regarding IQ as an example of this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
2. Your 1 in 5 is based on your observation of a narrow population in the Western World
No, it isn't. I've traveled extensively. It is simply not true that 20% of adult humans are shorter than 4.2 feet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
3. I have ignored Standard Deviation for simplicity sake.
You cannot ignore standard deviation and get any meaningful data from bell curve analysis. Yes, it makes it simpler, but that's like saying you've ignored acceleration when calculating force in order to keep things simple. It's simple, but it makes the calculations completely useless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Obviously actual data is much better than no data.
Without data, one can do an intelligent guess based on whatever data is available and using various techniques.
I qualified this 20% is based on my best estimation and a distribution of the human variable using Principles of the Bell Curve.
Stop saying the "Principles of the Bell Curve" have any bearing on your 20% figure. Your 20% figure is just your guess, nothing more. There is no principle in statistics that it is based on, and there is no actual data point that you've extrapolated from. It is merely a number you've made up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
My definition of 'evil' is any act or thought that is regarded as immoral and net negative to the individual, group and humanity.
Note my reference to "evil" is based on a range of evil [from low to high].
For example 'lying' is a low level evil, nevertheless it is still 'evil'.
Why is lying inherently an evil? If I'm hiding school children in a room during a mass shooting event, and the shooter asks me if there is anyone else in the room, is it evil for me to lie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
My guess is 80% of human beings have the tendency to lie [a low level evil], deliberately, spontaneously or unconsciously.
Here are some numbers;
According to a 2002 study conducted by the University of Massachusetts, 60% of adults can’t have a ten minute conversation without lying at least once.
60% of People Can't Go 10 Minutes Without Lying | Mental Floss


What percentage of the population lies?

Virtually everybody.
Dan Ariely is a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University. He and his fascinating research on dishonesty are featured in the documentary, "Dishonesty, The Truth About Lies,"
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/27/

I don't think you have much to dispute on the above, i.e. the evil [low degree] of lying.
Within lying there is the serious kind of lying and the not so serious like white lies.


Therefore my assertion,
20% of all humans are evil prone [has a tendency to commit evil] is very conservative.
I think 100% of people lie to some extent. My contention is that lying is not inherently evil.

However, you're getting off topic. We aren't discussing whether 20% of people can be evil. We are discussing whether any of your statistical analysis here amounts to more than a pile of bull****. It doesn't. If you want to say "I would estimate that 20% of humans are capable of evil," that's fine. But don't throw out a bunch of misused statistical terms that you don't know how to properly use and claim that those give some legitimacy to a view that is nothing more than your opinion. Opinions are great, but they should be presented as mere opinions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 11:52 AM
 
13 posts, read 6,565 times
Reputation: 10
Does not matter who came there first or together. US belongs to American natives, so Apaches, Comanches etc you know. Give it back to them and all US citizens back to Europe, South America, Asia etc...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 10:49 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
Your math was linear. If the mean height is 5.5 feet and the shortest height is 3 feet, the only way you could deduce that 20% of the population is below 4.2 feet is if you are assuming that height is distributed linearly. Bell curve distributions don't imply linear distributions, and they typically aren't linear. In fact, that is why they are called bell curve distributions rather than triangular distributions. See my example regarding IQ as an example of this.

No, it isn't. I've traveled extensively. It is simply not true that 20% of adult humans are shorter than 4.2 feet.

You cannot ignore standard deviation and get any meaningful data from bell curve analysis. Yes, it makes it simpler, but that's like saying you've ignored acceleration when calculating force in order to keep things simple. It's simple, but it makes the calculations completely useless.

Stop saying the "Principles of the Bell Curve" have any bearing on your 20% figure. Your 20% figure is just your guess, nothing more. There is no principle in statistics that it is based on, and there is no actual data point that you've extrapolated from. It is merely a number you've made up.
Note my reply to you above narrow minded point above in here.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/43137542-post19.html

You are bull****ting and inventing lies.
If I had computed by figure linearly it would be 4.32 feet and not 4.2 feet.


Quote:
Why is lying inherently an evil? If I'm hiding school children in a room during a mass shooting event, and the shooter asks me if there is anyone else in the room, is it evil for me to lie?

I think 100% of people lie to some extent. My contention is that lying is not inherently evil.
Based on my definition of what is evil, "lying" within my taxonomy of evil is a low degree type of evil.
If genocide is 99/100 evil then lying is 30/100.


Your trolley type of casuistry example of he consequentialist school of morality is not of an effective Moral System.
Note I have studied Kant's philosophy including his Morality/Ethics [for 3 years full time] which combine absolute moral principles/maxims [Pure Moral] with relative ethical maxims [Applied].
In Kant's Moral and Ethical System, Lying is absolutely not permissible as a moral maxim but only permissible within the practical world.
I won't go into details here.

Quote:
However, you're getting off topic. We aren't discussing whether 20% of people can be evil. We are discussing whether any of your statistical analysis here amounts to more than a pile of bull****. It doesn't.
If you want to say "I would estimate that 20% of humans are capable of evil," that's fine. But don't throw out a bunch of misused statistical terms that you don't know how to properly use and claim that those give some legitimacy to a view that is nothing more than your opinion. Opinions are great, but they should be presented as mere opinions.
I insist on mentioning the Principles of the Bell Curve because I have used it approximately and if at anytime or it is necessary to apply the principles strictly I can do it.

Last edited by Continuum; 02-24-2016 at 11:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 10:58 PM
 
Location: Here
1,694 posts, read 1,494,902 times
Reputation: 1332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destinyfulfilled View Post
up to 40% of African slaves where Muslim before the white man forced white jesus on them... so why are you telling Muslims to go back to their own country or aren't american enough?.
Maybe my logic is wrong but when I think of sending someone back to the country where they came from, I think of sending that person back to the country where they came from. So for example, if I'm from Canada and someone tells me I ought to go back to the country where I came from, then he would mean that I should go back to Canada. If I were born in the United States of parents from Canada, and someone where to instruct me to go back to the country where I came from, I would go to the United States, or stay in the United States if that were my country of residence.

Where slaves came from 200 years ago probably does not have a lot to do with the birthplace of people living today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 11:07 PM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,888,137 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Note my reply to you above narrow minded point above in here.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/43137542-post19.html

You are bull****ting and inventing lies.
If I had computed by figure linearly it would be 4.32 feet and not 4.2 feet.
If anyone is reading this, please follow the link above if you're interested in following that line of discussion. I just replied there, and there's no point in having the same debate in two threads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Based on my definition of what is evil, "lying" within my taxonomy of evil is a low degree type of evil.
If genocide is 99/100 evil then lying is 30/100.
You haven't answered the question: Why is lying inherently evil? Why have you included it in your taxonomy of evil?

It is easy to think of scenarios in which not lying would be evil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 11:39 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
If anyone is reading this, please follow the link above if you're interested in following that line of discussion. I just replied there, and there's no point in having the same debate in two threads.

You haven't answered the question: Why is lying inherently evil? Why have you included it in your taxonomy of evil?

It is easy to think of scenarios in which not lying would be evil.
Had to take a break then.
Note my edited post above re Kant's Moral and Ethical System.


Lying in general will result in consequences that are not good, i.e. immoral, therefore it is evil.
The degree of evilness will depend on context and the resulting consequences.
As I mentioned before, if Genocide is 99/100 evil then lying [generally] would be 10-30/100.
Of course white lies are at time necessary and if we understand its context then we can give consideration to it as in Kant's Moral/Ethics System.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 12:08 PM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,888,137 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Had to take a break then.
Note my edited post above re Kant's Moral and Ethical System.


Lying in general will result in consequences that are not good, i.e. immoral, therefore it is evil.
The degree of evilness will depend on context and the resulting consequences.
As I mentioned before, if Genocide is 99/100 evil then lying [generally] would be 10-30/100.
Of course white lies are at time necessary and if we understand its context then we can give consideration to it as in Kant's Moral/Ethics System.
Kant was wrong about ethics. I'm not sure why you've dismissed consequentialism, but it is a far better ethical system. It is easy to think of cases in which following a deontological maxim would result in greater suffering and less pleasure. Why should such a maxim be followed?

I also think it's interesting that you believe a genocide would be no more than 3-10 times worse than a lie. Do you really believe that? Are ten lies added together really as bad as a genocide?

I suggest you take a break from Kant and read more broadly in moral philosophy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top