jzs said:
Then why even mention it if it can't possibly support your case?
Why can't it possibly support my case? A case does not have to be solely supported by evidence. Logical argument and reasoning can support a case. In this case, I introduce anecdotally an example which indicates that your claim that no person, ever, in the history of the universe could have believed etc., is weak when it comes to children. Because any sane, rational person can at least imagine that
children might believe such a thing. Similarly I could have related a story about a mentally retarded adult that I know who believes ridiculous things (he believes that cows jump over the moon!) - which would then allow people to imagine that mentally retarded adults might believe such a thing. I could even have gone further and given an anecdote about a primitive tribesman somewhere in a rain forest who might believe such a thing because he has no education otherwise.
Your claim was that
no person, ever, in the history of the universe has ever believed such a thing. I know from my own experience that you are wrong. Almost anyone can easily see that
your claim to omniscience is vastly more improbable than the idea that someone (such as a child, mentally retarded adult, an uneducated primitive)
might honestly believe such a thing. And since you, yourself tried to weasel out of what you actually said by dismissing children it indicates that
you know you have been caught out - but you simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.
jzs said:
Show the actual evidence, not stories! There might be stories of bigfoot, of people believing in bigfoot, but until you show the carcass or the live creature, you don't have much. It is up to you to find the actual evidence to support your claim.
Outright dishonesty. I repeat, please tell me how anyone can provide evidence of what someone truly believes without asking them what they believe? A belief is not some physical object that can be taken out and shown - unlike bigfoot - as you well know. That is a deliberate straw man. The
only reasonably possible evidence that I can think of is to ask someone what they believe and to accept their answer. Therefore the only possible evidence that I am aware of relies on someone's personal testimony as to what they believe. I believe you know that. I believe that your insistence on other evidence is a deliberate straw man because you are completely intellectually dishonest. You may of course prove me wrong simply by showing what other kind of evidence is possible. I don't accept your claim that it is possible for someone to know simply because they believe themselves to be omniscient.
And I remind you, that you have persistently evaded answering to your claim. The onus was
never on me to prove the negative of your claim. The onus, was, is and always will be, on
you to prove how you can know what
all people, ever, in the history of the universe believe/believed. I have gone out of my way to accomodate you even though I was strictly under no obligation to do so. You have made no effort at all to justify your claim. That, again, is intellectual dishonesty.
You can whine, evade and throw up all the straw men you want, but your dishonesty is plain for all to see.
jzs said:
More anectodes 'he said she said' stuff, and they again are children.
How do you know they are children? Since they say "I used to believe", it's entirely possible that they are adults relating what they
used to believe
when they were children. This is why people like me take issue with your statements, you are sloppy, you jump to conclusions without properly considering the evidence.
Yes, they are anecdotes. But they are also personal testimonies. Which, in the absence of any plausible alternative, I believe is the only reasonably possible way of determining any person's beliefs. Again, if you maintain that anything
other that is possible, please feel free to share it.
jzs said:
I merely clarified my stance to avoid the ridiculous examples of childrens' imaginations. Still no evidence of any adult, right?
You expect one to take your word that your child believed in it, or those other people did when they were children? How about some verifiable evidence, please.
More dishonesty and a double standard. You hounded Claus demanding to know which astrologers he was referring to. When he told you that he was referring to ones that used those charts (which incidentally is patently obvious from the context of his article), you wanted him to admit that he was "wrong" in allegedly implying
all astrologers (strictly according to you of course). But when you do the same thing that you claimed you were crticising him for in
this case - to a much greater degree - and you are called on it, you are "merely clarifying your stance". So do you admit that your original claim about
all people (not just adults) was wrong? Are you prepared to admit what you demand from others?
Anyway, back to the point at hand. I repeat, the onus is on
you to provide evidence for your claim to know the actions and beliefs of
all people, ever, in the history of the universe. It is
not on me to prove the negative of that. It never was. I have however offered some argument in support of that negative. Doing so did not place me under any obligation to provide evidence for the negative. To imply so is outright dishonesty on your part. I do not expect you to take my word that my child believed it. I am simply stating
why I think you are wrong. And in respect of the other things I quoted they are the only possible kind of evidence I am aware of in respect of it.
Now, the question is, are you, or are you not, going to show evidence that indicates that it is possible for you to know the actions and beliefs of
all people, ever, in the history of the universe?
You have been asked numerous times, you have made no effort whatsoever to answer. I asked
you for such evidence before you asked me to provide evidence to the negative. I have gone out of my way to accommodate you, but you have simply evaded, twisted and turned.
Can you, or will you, provide evidence of your claims? Yes or no.
jzs said:
Nonsense. I am not basing any argument on that comment, it is merely an expression of my concern. Which is a legitimate one
if you truly believe what you say you do. If on the other hand you are simply being dishonest, then please take it as an expression of my disgust and contempt of your attitude. Which again makes it neither ad hom nor a straw man which are fallacies of argument. I base no argument on the point, so you are wrong - again.
jzs said:
Ask him if he randomly sampled for astrological charts.
Ask him. Get your clarification right from the source.
Why should I? It's of no interest to me. I've already stated clearly why I don't believe there is any problem and why I think it's irrelevent if he randomly sampled etc. It's
you who claims to have a problem with it.
jzs said:
"more or less randomly". Care to explain what that means exactly?
It means that I don't personally believe that any human action is
truly random regardless of intentions. However, where there
is a genuine intent to obtain random data and all obvious sources of error are ruled out then I believe it would be fair to say the result can be "more or less random". In other words, I allow for the possibility that the data may not be as random as it seems. Such is life.
jzs said:
And you are in no position to defend him either. All we know is he looked at 2 books he had access to. From these, he got 7 charts. Will he clarify how he got the books?
I'm calling you on conclusions you jumped to apparently without evidence - if that happens to "defend" Claus at the same time, then so be it. Although Claus hardly needs me to "defend" him! It's
you I'm calling out. And yes, precisely, to use your own words,
"All we know is he looked at 2 books he had access to. From these, he got 7 charts.". Since that
is all we know, then what is the basis for your numerous accusations about poor sampling etc?
There is an old principle in law which it appears you may not be aware of. It's called "innocent until proven guilty". But in your case, you accuse, condemn and demand that people prove their innocence. And since I am fairly sure your response to that will be, "show me exactly where....etc.", I'll answer in advance. In this case with your criticism of Claus. In other cases where you have stalked people with false accusations, like the recent incident where you stalked jj implying he had made a mathematical error when in fact the mathematical error was yours. There are any number of other examples.
jzs said:
How can that be a straw man? You
have claimed that you know the actions and beliefs of
all people, ever, in the history of the universe. I was fairly sure initially that you hadn't
meant to claim that, and that is why I asked if that is what you wanted me to accept as your claim. Your answer to that was, "Yes". Case closed. The
fact of the matter is that I don't believe you. It is relevant in the context of allegations you make based on such alleged knowledge and therefore it is not a straw man.
jzs said:
The number is irrelevant, as I've said. It is up to him to present the details of his study, the details of which he did not write about.
The number is irrelevent? Are you kidding? You make an issue of whether a sample from a population was random, but you believe the
size of that population is
irrelevent? So if Claus chose 2 books from a population of 2, makes no difference to whether Claus chose 2 books from a population of 2 million? And you claim to know something about statistics? Sheesh! As for the details of the study, Claus gave all the detail that was required to support the inference he made. The fact that you choose to ignore the inference he actually
did make (which again I submit was obvious from the context) and choose to claim that he made a totally different one - the onus is on you to show that he did indeed make the inference you claim. And so far you have failed miserably to do so. At worst you have shown that he could possibly have made himself a tiny bit clearer in order not to confuse total idiots who can't extrapolate from context. Big deal.
Anything that anybody writes can be potentially misinterpreted by someone stupid (or devious or dishonest) enough. There isn't much that anyone can do about that. Or do you expect Claus to somehow eliminate global stupidity?
jzs said:
I don't think I said it wouldn't ever be meaningful, just that technically one cannot make inferences because they weren't sampled in a random manner. You have no way of knowing if those samples are representative.
You did say that. But I'll accept that wasn't what you
meant.
Listen, if you sample an
entire population, then any (reasonable) inference you draw from that sample
is valid for that population. It makes no difference if you sample randomly or not
if you sample the
entire population. And that is the case here. Some charts were obtained. The population in question is the population of
astrologers who use those charts. The actual
definition of the entire population is question is that they are astrologers who use those charts. People who are not astrologers are not part of that population. Astrologers (and people who are not astrologers) who do not use those charts, are also not part of that population. The inference is extended to this "captive" well defined population, not any other. It makes no difference how the charts were sampled if the inference based on them only extends to the people who actually use the specific charts in question. In other words, if the population to which an inference is drawn is wholly
defined by the specific samples chosen then it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever
how those samples were chosen. As I have said before this is elementary logic.
jzs said:
Those specific 7 ones, or such charts in general?
Either/any/both. Since you are one insisting that sampling is significant I would expect that you have some idea of the population in question before deciding whether the sample was significant or not, no? Because, as I asked you before, would it be wrong to infer to a population of 8 from a convenience sample of 7 for example? If you have no idea of the population in question, how can you claim it to be insignificant?
jzs said:
No. The manner of sampling tells me that the inference is not valid.
Really? If, for the sake of argument I were to assert that the population in question is 8, then please explain to me how the method of sampling would alter the significance of a sample of 7 from said population?
jzs said:
Count how many questions you asked in your "answers" to me, please. Then see if that number is larger or smaller than the number of questions I ask you.
It makes no difference how many questions were
asked, the issue is how many questions were
answered. Now
that's a straw man on your part. Go on, count how many of your questions I have answered. Then count how many of mine you have answered. Please feel free to analyse the answers statistically and post them here. Go on, I dare you...
I have not simply answered most of your questions solely with other questions (or with unqualified judgements such as "ad hom", "strawman"). Can you say the same?
jzs said:
Strawman.
What I specifically said was no one, ever, has believed the moon is really made of green cheese. I further qualified this by talking specifically about adults to avoid the issue with childrens' imaginations and inexperience with the world. This the is the default position, as no evidence has been presented for the contrary. If you have some, feel free to present it.
Reality check time. You claimed that
no-one, ever, in the history of the universe had believed that etc. You did not qualify this. When you were called on it, and I mentioned that children might believe it, you demanded evidence of adults. That was not a qualification, that was moving the goalposts. Call it what you want, it doesn't alter the facts which are there for all to see.
I then specifically asked you if I should accept that you are omniscient as a default position. You answered, "Yes". Those are the facts. They are here in this thread. Lying about it doesn't do you any credit.
jzs said:
You should really ask him for the specifics of his study.
Why should I? The matter is no concern to me. The information he has given is sufficient and I can't see any error or problem with his inference.
You seem to be the only person who has any problem with it. What is really interesting is how you judged it
without having sufficient information to make such a judgement. That is why I, and others are calling you on it.
jzs said:
He said the books that he has access to. Please, ask him if he randomly sampled them.
His paper shows 7 charts; 3 from a single book and 4 from another single book. Then he goes on to talk about "astrologers" in general and asking "your" astrologer, etc. A "third of the time the advice you get from your astrologer will be completely random". I'm sorry, but how do you know about my astrologer (hypothetical here) based on that? Are you assuming my astrologer uses charts by Danish astrologers? How odd.
I couldn't care less how he sampled them, I've already explained why. And Claus has told you, numerous times that he was
not referring to astrologers in general. Yet you persist in claiming that is what he meant. You are just lying - the interesting question is why? Why do you claim to know what Claus meant when Claus himself denies that is what he meant? Why? Come on, let's have a straight answer for a change - what do you gain by putting words into the mouth of others?
There is an obvious implication that if "your" astrologer uses those charts that he will be wrong for the reasons stated. It's colloquial use of the language. Are you seriously going to argue against all colloquial expressions on the grounds that they are pedantically misleading? And why on earth would I assume that "your" astrologer would use Danish charts? Who said that the charts in question were Danish or from Danish astrologers? I'm not going to let you wriggle out of that one - please give me a specific answer as to why I should assume the charts to be Danish?
jzs said:
The method of sampling determines if inference is valid or not.
It does not if the "sample"
by definition is the
entire population. No more meaningless assertions, prove me wrong. You do understand that you are conflating two different populations here, don't you?
jzs said:
No, let's look at what they do say, since that is very important here. Page 5 of this .pdf file http://osu.orst.edu/instruct/st511/schafer/displays_2nd_ed/overheads1_8.PDF addresses this.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that there is only one procedure that must be dogmatically followed for all possible cases? That doesn't apply here at all. It is in relation to inferences about a population based on samples
from that same population. It is totally irrelevent in this case. Claus did
not sample a subset of astrologers to make an inference about astrologers. Nor did he sample a subset of charts to draw an inference about charts. He sampled a few specific charts to make an inference about astrologers
who use those charts. I am frankly amazed that someone who claims to work in statistics is blind to the fact that there are two independent populations in this instance. An inference about one population is made from a sampling of a
different population (charts and astrologers who use them) -
and the second population is
wholly and totally defined by the first population
after the samples are taken. Sheesh! This is elementary!
jzs said:
I'm hardpressed to understand what that meant.
Obviously! I've explained it again above, hopefully in terms simple enough so that even a statistician may understand it!
jzs said:
Let's get some things straight:
a) Those exact 7 charts, or
b) similar astrological charts- not those specific ones?
If a), the article wording is a bid odd, talking about astrologers in general, saying astrologers (again, addressing all of them) disagree more than they agree, and talking about asking your astrologer. Why would my astrologer (again, hypothetical) in the USA, use a Danish chart? Why would a person in China why would their astrologer be using those charts? ie. he was mistaken to speak of astrologers in general; in fact, the article was misleading. The article should refer to the specific sample when presenting his conclusions.
If b), no, the inference is not valid. Because the 7 charts were not sampled randomly, we have no way of knowing if they are representative or not.
The article makes no reference to similar charts, therefore it is self-evident that the inference is in relation to those specific charts. I agree that Claus has switched context apparently referring to a wider group of astrologers in other contexts, yes, that could have been clearer. Bad Claus. Naughty, naughty Claus, don't do it again! However, there is nothing there that would indicate that the specific conclusion in relation to the specific charts should be inferred to all astrologers, if anything I read it as an example in support of the more general statements. One assumes that the reader will apply at least a modicum of common sense - maybe an unjustified assumption in some cases of course... And I don't see that the other more general statements are particularly questionable - you only have to look at the horoscopes in a selection of daily newspapers to determine that astrologers in general disagree more often than they agree.
And once again, what makes you say they are Danish charts? Three of the charts came from a Danish book. Of those,
two of the authors have Scandinavian sounding names. Which does
not indicate that they could not possibly be say Chinese authors of Swedish descent for example. And where did those authors obtain those charts? Is it possible that a Chinese author of Swedish descent possibly copied a chart from elsewhere that had been authored by a Nigerian gentleman of Australian descent?
The simple fact of the matter is that
you don't know but once again, as usual, you jump to conclusions. *I* don't know how generally these specific charts are used, and in any event it is completely irrelevent if the inference is only to the astrologers who use those charts.
jzs said:
It most certainly does if we are talking about b). If a), then the article is very misleading by not referring to the specific sample when presenting the conclusions.
I agree. It is the method of sampling here that is important. Go ask him... just how did he sample? Ask for specific details.
Already answered at length elsewhere.
jzs said:
How is that ad-hominem? Please explain it to me, don't just trot out the words. Ad-hominem is "answering to the person not the issue in debate". Where were we debating your memory? I ask if you have a memory problem because you ask me to repeat something which I have quoted at length and which you, yourself said only a couple of posts before. Why do you need to keep asking the same questions? I can only think of two immediate reasons:
a) You have a memory problem
b) You are deliberately trying to be irritating and avoid answering questions by contrived "innocence", i.e. "Did I make a claim? Really? I don't remember" - when it is perfectly clear to anyone of even marginal intelligence that that is precisely what you did.
I don't want to attack you if you genuinely have some medical reason why you appear to forget what you said from one message to the next. Is that ad-hom? Of course, if you
are simply trying to be dishonest and irritating then don't be surprised if someone tells you where to stick yourself. And
please don't come the innocent here. You are a persistently uncivil poster, you stalk people, you accuse, you lie, you evade, duck and dodge. If you think you're fooling anyone, you're very much mistaken.
jzs said:
Same strawman.
Same strawman again.
I suggest you go find out what the terms actually
mean before you liberally throw them around.
jzs said:
Testimony, and you admit it is testimony, is not evidence. So there we are, you still have no evidence for an adult truly believing the moon is made out of green cheese, and my default position is still the default position.
Yes it's testimony. But are you
sure that testimony is
never evidence? Sometimes testimony is the only evidence possible - such as in this case. If you maintain that it is
not the only evidence possible (as to a person's beliefs) then please feel free to demonstrate the alternative - without claiming paranormal powers please.
If testimony is never evidence then I suppose you could go rob a bank and walk away with impunity because no court would ever accept the testimony of witnesses as evidence against you, would it? Care to try it?
