Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

“The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,” Follow

#52 Mar 17 2011 at 11:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
And when you have stats, those things are great and should be used instead of anecdotal evidence. And when you don't, for whatever reason-- because they don't exist, or you simple don't have them-- a description of the possible consequences and their severity is a perfectly admissible contribution to a debate, emotionally charged or not.

The issue there is the implication that those "consequences" will be far more widespread than what is reality. "No one should own a stove because just picture a basket of kittens with their faces burnt off, mewling in agony" isn't a appropriate argument just because I don't have any actual stats on kitten-burning and so my "description of the possible consequences" should stand in lieu of anything actually useful.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Mar 18 2011 at 1:13 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kachi wrote:
And when you have stats, those things are great and should be used instead of anecdotal evidence. And when you don't, for whatever reason-- because they don't exist, or you simple don't have them-- a description of the possible consequences and their severity is a perfectly admissible contribution to a debate, emotionally charged or not.

The issue there is the implication that those "consequences" will be far more widespread than what is reality. "No one should own a stove because just picture a basket of kittens with their faces burnt off, mewling in agony" isn't a appropriate argument just because I don't have any actual stats on kitten-burning and so my "description of the possible consequences" should stand in lieu of anything actually useful.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't need me to detail how your analogy isn't entirely appropriate. The point is that you can't have a logical debate without thorough consideration of the consequences, and that where data fails, anecdotes are relatively appropriate. If you don't have data on kitten-stove face-melting, but I do have data on kitten-bonfire face-melting, it is productive to the debate that both sides present their argument however weak their argument may be.

What is not appropriate is relying on the salience of one emotional outcome to overpower a greater or equally compelling emotional outcome. i.e., attempting to bring sway to your side by evoking more emotion than your opponent. And even that is not to say that there is something wrong with trying to evoke emotion-- the fallacy is when you perceive that this has strengthened your argument.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#54 Mar 18 2011 at 2:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,003 posts
Kachi wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Kachi wrote:
And when you have stats, those things are great and should be used instead of anecdotal evidence. And when you don't, for whatever reason-- because they don't exist, or you simple don't have them-- a description of the possible consequences and their severity is a perfectly admissible contribution to a debate, emotionally charged or not.

The issue there is the implication that those "consequences" will be far more widespread than what is reality. "No one should own a stove because just picture a basket of kittens with their faces burnt off, mewling in agony" isn't a appropriate argument just because I don't have any actual stats on kitten-burning and so my "description of the possible consequences" should stand in lieu of anything actually useful.


I am still wrong, but I'm gonna Gbaji it up in here.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#55 Mar 18 2011 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
28,264 posts
Here's a rule of thumb: "won't someone think of the CHILDREN!?" is almost always a fallacious appeal to emotion, and that's exactly what we're talking about here.

There are plenty of real, measurable consequences that we can discuss without that.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#56 Mar 18 2011 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Samira wrote:
Here's a rule of thumb: "won't someone think of the CHILDREN!?" is almost always a fallacious appeal to emotion, and that's exactly what we're talking about here.


Or kittens. Or in Joph's case, rabbits.
#57 Mar 18 2011 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Samira wrote:
Here's a rule of thumb: "won't someone think of the CHILDREN!?" is almost always a fallacious appeal to emotion, and that's exactly what we're talking about here.


Or kittens.


When the game of life makes you feel like quittin',
It helps a lot if you kill a kitten
Mark my words, cause from where I'm sittin',
You can't go wrong if you kill a kitten

There's no crime that you'll be commitin'
I know the law, you can kill a kitten
If you need yarn for that scarf you're knittin'
You'll get plenty when you kill a kitten

Feed it turpentine, or break its spine,
Crush it with your shoe, as long as you...
Kill a kitten
(meow) Kill a kitten

If the one you love isn't quite as smitten,
She'll like you better when you kill a kitten
And to quote the bible, cause that's where it's written
"If ye loveth Jesus, ye must kill a kitten"

Flush it down the can, hit it with your van,
Drown it in a lake, bake a kitty cake
Throw it at a train, make it snort cocaine
Stick some TNT up its cat booty
Do what you must do, as long as you...
Kill a kitten (meow)
Kill a kitten

Killing kittens isn't easy,
And if the thought makes you feel queasy,
Grab a pitchfork from the shed,
And kill a puppy dog instead! Yeah!
Kill a kitten, you gotta kill a kitten, a little furry kitten
Kill a kitten (4x)
Kill....
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#58 Mar 18 2011 at 1:46 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Samira wrote:
Here's a rule of thumb: "won't someone think of the CHILDREN!?" is almost always a fallacious appeal to emotion, and that's exactly what we're talking about here.


Or kittens. Or in Joph's case, rabbits.

What sucks is "Think of the WHORES!" doesn't hold quite the same sway.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#59 Mar 18 2011 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Kachi wrote:
The point is that you can't have a logical debate without thorough consideration of the consequences, and that where data fails, anecdotes are relatively appropriate. If you don't have data on kitten-stove face-melting, but I do have data on kitten-bonfire face-melting, it is productive to the debate that both sides present their argument however weak their argument may be.


Except the problem is that in this specific context (nuclear power, not kitten face melting), we do have access to some compelling facts and statistics. That was already linked in this thread and clearly shows how vastly much more harmful the effects of coal are compared to nuclear. Given that this is the exact argument which I was making and to which you responded with imagery of children born with their brains outside their heads, you are clearly using that emotional appeal, not to counter some other emotional appeal, but as a means of ignoring or overriding the actual facts which run counter to your own position.


Quote:
What is not appropriate is relying on the salience of one emotional outcome to overpower a greater or equally compelling emotional outcome. i.e., attempting to bring sway to your side by evoking more emotion than your opponent. And even that is not to say that there is something wrong with trying to evoke emotion-- the fallacy is when you perceive that this has strengthened your argument.


Honestly, I'd say that what makes it a full fallacy isn't when it's emotion vs emotion, but when you're using emotion to sway people away from facts. The facts clearly show that the most likely alternative source of power to nuclear (coal) is vastly more harmful to our health), yet you continue to argue against nuclear on the very issue of health impact. It's fallacious because you're using emotions not just in the absence of facts, but in opposition to facts.


Frankly, it's fallacious all the time, but it's really fallacious how you're using it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60Kachi, Posted: Mar 18 2011 at 3:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The argument he made wasn't "won't someone think of the children," but a detail of actual health consequences that he had seen. Those are real, measurable consequences. What some of you seem to be missing is that statistics are merely a collection of anecdotes. They are legitimate admissions to a debate is all I'm saying-- just correcting gbaji on his labeling of the appeal to emotion fallacy. I have not weighed in on the argument itself either way, and really don't intend to beyond having already said that I support the use of nuclear power.
#61 Mar 18 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
a detail of actual health consequences that he had seen

He didn't actually state that he had seen those effects, much less as a result of a nuclear accident. If Paulsol has a wealth of first-hand experience dealing with nuclear disasters, he hasn't shared it with the class.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Mar 18 2011 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Kachi wrote:
The argument he made wasn't "won't someone think of the children," but a detail of actual health consequences that he had seen. Those are real, measurable consequences.


Except that argument was made in support of a position in opposition to the use of nuclear power. His argument is "weak" because he lists off consequences of nuclear power without comparing them to the consequences of the most likely replacement for nuclear power (coal). His argument is "fallacious" because he relies on emotionally laden imagery to sway people to his position rather than the actual statistics.

Quote:
What some of you seem to be missing is that statistics are merely a collection of anecdotes. They are legitimate admissions to a debate is all I'm saying--


Statistics are, but he didn't actually use statistics to make his argument. I don't recall any hard numbers or facts or sources used with his argument. He just talked about the horrible effects of radiation without quantifying the rate or likelihood of those effects at all.


Quote:
... just correcting gbaji on his labeling of the appeal to emotion fallacy.


He's appealing to emotion. That is *always* a fallacious argument. That doesn't mean that it's not effective, but it's still fallacious. If you want to make a strong argument, you should include facts and data which support your position. If all you do is talk about how horrible the effects of something are, your argument is fallacious and those you're speaking to should rightly dismiss that argument for exactly that reason.

Quote:
I have not weighed in on the argument itself either way, and really don't intend to beyond having already said that I support the use of nuclear power.


So you just jumped into the middle of this in order to insist that an argument based solely on an appeal to emotion isn't really fallacious? I guess I just kinda have to scratch my head on that one given that such arguments are pretty universally accepted as fallacies. I mean, you're free to insist that the entire rest of the argument studying world is wrong and you're right, but I'm not sure what that gets you.

Quote:
@gbaji; you need to pay more attention to who you're talking to. Might help you limit those reading comprehension failures. Hint: I am not paulsol.


Yeah. You. He. Whatever.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Mar 18 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,965 posts
Joph and Gbaji are on the same side of an arguement. Is this some sort of uh... division by zero event?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#64 Mar 18 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,150 posts
I was listening to a chap from the British Foreign office being interviewed yesterday concerning the events in the ME. He said that the big problem with the Foreign policy of most western countries these days is that it is concieved and implemented by people, the majority of whom have never worked or spent any real time abroad, and their only experience of other peoples countries is short vacations or occasional business trips. To make up for that lack of hands on immersive knowledge (of countries, cultures, customs etc, they fall back on the advice that is availiable to them through statistics and reports which are usually provided by analysts who invariably have even less real knowledge and experience of the area that they are analyzing.

He said that there is absolutely no substitute for the knowledge gained from actually experiencing the world around you and decisions based upon that knowledge will always be more valid than ones made from the isolated position of an office or conference room thousands of miles away.

I agree.

Quote:
Joph and Gbaji are on the same side of an arguement.



I can almost picture the wagons being circled as the Kiwi gets all uppity.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#65 Mar 18 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
a detail of actual health consequences that he had seen

He didn't actually state that he had seen those effects, much less as a result of a nuclear accident. If Paulsol has a wealth of first-hand experience dealing with nuclear disasters, he hasn't shared it with the class.


Well I kind of interpreted that he did have some valuable first-hand experience:

Quote:
No. Its a reality. Its REAL. Nothing to do with emotions. But perhaps you forget or don't know or more likely dont care what I've done for a living for the last 1/4 century so thats ok.

I really honestly hope that no more nuclear power stations ever go wrong again.

And I really, really mean that.


@gbaji: It's fine to say that it's a weak argument. I was merely pointing out that in terms of debate, the part you initially referred to as a fallacy is not an "appeal to emotion" fallacy. Not to mention, you're like the last person here who should be pointing to the list of fallacies, nevermind the fact that you apparently don't understand it.

Quote:
He's appealing to emotion. That is *always* a fallacious argument.


I just demonstrated how it's not, and yes, that's why I just jumped in to correct you on your usage of the term.

As for "me, him, whatever," considering we have completely different viewpoints on the matter, I'd say you might want to get that sh*t straight before you go spouting off at the wrong person and looking like a fool.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 5:37pm by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#66 Mar 18 2011 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Kachi wrote:
I was merely pointing out that in terms of debate, the part you initially referred to as a fallacy is not an "appeal to emotion" fallacy.


Huh?

gbaji wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Its not that you die. Its how you die. Its how the children you produce are born with no legs or their brains on the outside of their skulls. and then their children (if they even manage to reproduce at all) are born with no eyes or kidneys. Or how you spend the last weeks of your life. Wether that is surrounded by family and friends, or attached to a ventilator in an isolation unit waiting for you lungs to disolve as your children look at you thru a 2" lead impregnated window...


And that is not about emotions. That is what happens.

Um... That was 100% about emotions. Really? You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?



The paragraph I quoted and called an appeal to emotion is a textbook example of the fallacy. WTF?


And in case you're curious, Paulsol's comment about that not being about emotions was in reference to an earlier statement (in a different thread in fact) about how liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought. I honestly don't remember who made that statement in the other thread at the moment, but I find it incredibly ironic that Paul choose to quote that and then proceeded to perfectly prove the statement true (assuming we're putting a "liberal" label on him of course).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Mar 18 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Huh?


To clarify: Your application of "appeal to emotion" as a logical fallacy, was itself a logical fallacy (that logical fallacy is called equivocation). Not all appeals to emotion qualify as the logical fallacy we call "appeal to emotion."

Quote:
The paragraph I quoted and called an appeal to emotion is a textbook example of the fallacy. WTF?


It's also not the part that you initially called an appeal to emotion.

Anyway, this is all pretty pedantic because I'm not really interested in discussing the issue at hand, but nonetheless have time to kill. I welcome you to drop it unless it's truly an interesting avenue of conversation for you.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#68 Mar 18 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Christ almighty Kachi, yes, it's a textbook fallacious appeal to emotion. You're overreaching in your attempts to one-up gbaji. He's correct this time.

Don't worry, he'll say something silly again in 12-24 hours. Then by all means, go after him.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 10:57pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#69 Mar 18 2011 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Huh?


To clarify: Your application of "appeal to emotion" as a logical fallacy, was itself a logical fallacy (that logical fallacy is called equivocation). Not all appeals to emotion qualify as the logical fallacy we call "appeal to emotion."


But what Paul said does. I'm not sure what your point is. If you're arguing that it's possible to contrive some other completely unrelated situation where one could argue using an appeal to emotion without it being a fallacy, I really don't want to get involved.

In this case, what Paul said is a logical fallacy commonly referred to as an "appeal to emotion", or more specifically an "appeal to pity".

Quote:
Quote:
The paragraph I quoted and called an appeal to emotion is a textbook example of the fallacy. WTF?


It's also not the part that you initially called an appeal to emotion.


Are you on crack or something? Yes, it is. I quoted the very first time the phrase "appeal to emotion" was used in this thread. It was used, by me in response to the exact paragraph from Paul I quoted.

Quote:
Anyway, this is all pretty pedantic because I'm not really interested in discussing the issue at hand, but nonetheless have time to kill. I welcome you to drop it unless it's truly an interesting avenue of conversation for you.


I'm now more interested in how delusional you can get here.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 7:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Mar 18 2011 at 10:52 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Christ almighty Kachi, yes, it's a textbook fallacious appeal to emotion. You're overreaching in your attempts to one-up gbaji. He's correct this time.

Don't worry, he'll say something silly again in 12-24 hours. Then by all means, go after him.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 10:57pm by Eske


No, it actually wasn't, because there was content to the appeal (and as if I actively attempt to one-up gbaji-- trust me, it just happens). The fallacy of appeal to emotion is that there is no relevant argument being made; that the argument is solely asking someone to "have a heart." For example, arguing against abortion with, "Killing babies is wrong! Think of that poor child's stolen future!" Conversely, "By killing a fetus, you are taking away that child's future opportunity for happiness," is not a particularly GOOD argument, but neither is it a fallacious appeal to emotion. It is a valid assertion that is relevant to the debate.

This is the way the fallacy works, and my only interest in pointing it out is out of pedantry and boredom.

Quote:
Are you on crack or something? Yes, it is. I quoted the very first time the phrase "appeal to emotion" was used in this thread. It was used, by me in response to the exact paragraph from Paul I quoted.


My mistake. As you know I often skip your posts, and I assumed from the context of paulsol's post: "And that is not about emotions. That is what happens." that you accused him of making an appeal to emotion in the prior post. I see that you didn't; however, that doesn't change the fact that the quoted part is not a fallacious appeal to emotion. It is a description of events with the implication that the quality, rather than the quantity, of deaths of one offsets the other.

Quote:
If you're arguing that it's possible to contrive some other completely unrelated situation where one could argue using an appeal to emotion without it being a fallacy, I really don't want to get involved.

In this case, what Paul said is a logical fallacy commonly referred to as an "appeal to emotion", or more specifically an "appeal to pity".


No, what Paul said is more analogous to the example I already gave:

Quote:
Just because there is a logical fallacy CALLED "appeal to emotion" does not mean that all emotional appeals are logical fallacies. e.g., "You should stop cheating on your wife, because it hurts her feelings," is an argument that appeals to emotion, but it is not the logical fallacy we classify as "appeal to emotion."


Paul's argument is an appeal to emotions in the context of quality of life, not a plea to be merciful. That is a valid argument; not a fallacy.

If anyone still doubts this, I suggest you do a bit of reading around. I'm tired of arguing something that is pretty well explained by the most basic sources.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#71 Mar 18 2011 at 11:33 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Kachi wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Christ almighty Kachi, yes, it's a textbook fallacious appeal to emotion. You're overreaching in your attempts to one-up gbaji. He's correct this time.

Don't worry, he'll say something silly again in 12-24 hours. Then by all means, go after him.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 10:57pm by Eske


No, it actually wasn't, because there was content to the appeal (and as if I actively attempt to one-up gbaji-- trust me, it just happens). The fallacy of appeal to emotion is that there is no relevant argument being made; that the argument is solely asking someone to "have a heart." For example, arguing against abortion with, "Killing babies is wrong! Think of that poor child's stolen future!" Conversely, "By killing a fetus, you are taking away that child's future opportunity for happiness," is not a particularly GOOD argument, but neither is it a fallacious appeal to emotion. It is a valid assertion that is relevant to the debate.

This is the way the fallacy works, and my only interest in pointing it out is out of pedantry and boredom.


It's cool that you think that and all, but no, that's not how it works.

____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#72Kachi, Posted: Mar 19 2011 at 12:02 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post)
#73 Mar 19 2011 at 1:35 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
I suggest you do a bit of reading around. I'm tired of arguing something that is pretty well explained by the most basic sources.


It's already been said, so I doubt that it'll have any more effect if I write it, but here it goes:

Paul is arguing against the use of nuclear power. He's doing so by citing the dangers posed; the cost to human life. He is presented with the fact that the most likely and viable alternatives to nuclear power available are actually deadlier, that nuclear power is safer, in relative terms. He's effectively lost his argument.

He then gives the gory details about potential medical complications from nuclear radiation.


So, what makes it a fallacious appeal to emotion? It doesn't address the previously stated fact about nuclear power's relative safety. It doesn't supersede the many painful and horrifying manners of death that other viable energy sources bring about. It's factual, yes. But does it improve his case (that we shouldn't pursue nuclear power)? Nope.

A fallacious appeal to emotion compels us to draw on our less rational, emotional reactions in lieu of the proper conclusion. It makes no objective improvement to the user's case. Paul's example did just that. In an argument over whether or not we should use nuclear power, it has no merit when viewed in any practical terms.

My guess is that you're getting thrown off about his argument. Try to remember the case that he's trying to make, and then analyze whether that example proves that point.

Edited, Mar 19th 2011 3:36am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#74Kachi, Posted: Mar 19 2011 at 2:40 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) His argument, as I read it, is that the suffering and tragedy, regardless of the quantifiable death statistic, is worse. Again, I don't even agree with his argument; I recognize its weakness. A weak argument is not necessarily a fallacious one, however, nor does an argument sacrifice objectivity by considering emotions. Further, an argument doesn't become fallacious just because it fails to improve a case or counter the argument it intends to-- it may be a non sequitur, a digression, argument ad nauseum, or some other fallacy, but most fallacies are irrespective of context and only apply to the individual argument, appeal to emotion being one of them. That's not to say that he hasn't made some logical fallacies, just not the one being bandied about.
#75 Mar 19 2011 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
I don't know why you'd make that assumption about paul's argument. He's been pretty clear about his position for a few threads now.

Your interpretation could be correct, but he hasn't said a single thing to support it, and as you said, it'd be a pretty silly argument to make (even sillier than the more likely one). I don't buy it, and I think that you're just reverse-engineering a possible position for him to prop up your case.

Edited, Mar 19th 2011 1:37pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#76 Mar 19 2011 at 11:04 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,810 posts
Seeing as how we've been using Nuclear power for energy for over 50 years, and there have been exactly 3 serious accidents to date, and to be fair only 1 of those was extremely serious, the benefits have far outweighed the risks to date.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#77Kachi, Posted: Mar 20 2011 at 11:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Welp, I think people are just inventing a definition/defense for a concept they're embarrassed to admit they misunderstood, but by this point I'm fresh out of giving a fuck. The nice thing about language, I guess, is that definitions conveniently tend to change to whatever is accepted usage, regardless of the original form. I just hope the world of philosophy, logic and debate isn't too burdened by having to reappropriate a term reserved for a logical fallacy into a definition for an oratory tactic.
#78 Mar 21 2011 at 4:36 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,702 posts
Quote:
Welp, I think people are just inventing a definition/defense for a concept they're embarrassed to admit they misunderstood
Totally. How could you be wrong when it's far more likely that multiple people are hiding behind a misunderstanding?



You've spent too much time arguing with gbaji/Alma/varus.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#79 Mar 21 2011 at 6:23 AM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
28,264 posts
Quote:
Welp, I think people are just inventing a definition/defense for a concept they're embarrassed to admit they misunderstood, but by this point I'm fresh out of giving a ****. The nice thing about language, I guess, is that definitions conveniently tend to change to whatever is accepted usage, regardless of the original form. I just hope the world of philosophy, logic and debate isn't too burdened by having to reappropriate a term reserved for a logical fallacy into a definition for an oratory tactic.


To expand on what Ugly said: no, you were wrong. Some of us stopped arguing with you because it's obvious that you're invested in your surprising new definition of an established concept.

So yeah, much like Alma and varus.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#80 Mar 21 2011 at 6:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Some of us stopped arguing with you because it's obvious that you're invested in your surprising new definition of an established concept.

Werd.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Mar 21 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Samira wrote:
So yeah, much like Alma and varus.

Werder
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#82 Mar 21 2011 at 12:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Samira wrote:
So yeah, much like Alma and varus.

Werder
Cuz sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#83 Mar 21 2011 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Samira wrote:
So yeah, much like Alma and varus.

Werder
Cuz sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't.

You go both ways, eh?
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#84 Mar 21 2011 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Samira wrote:
So yeah, much like Alma and varus.

Werder
Cuz sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't.

You go both ways, eh?
Lots of ways but only in the forward direction.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#85 Mar 21 2011 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Samira wrote:
So yeah, much like Alma and varus.

Werder
Cuz sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't.

You go both ways, eh?
Lots of ways but only in the forward direction.

Too late, I have already declared you a *** dude.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#86Kachi, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 3:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) All the people who were wrong agree they're right. Big surprise.
#87 Mar 23 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
Kachi wrote:
All the people who were wrong agree they're right. Big surprise.


Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#88 Mar 23 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,702 posts
You do an excellent gbaji impersonation there, Kachi.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#89Kachi, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 7:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Just google it for Chrissakes. I don't even care if you agree with me after the fact, but at least humor me by making an effort to educate yourselves so that we can all know that you aren't just misusing a term that it commonly thrown around by internet dumbfucks who like to pretend that they are savants of logic.
#90 Mar 23 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
All the people who were wrong agree they're right. Big surprise.

Irony.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Mar 23 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,702 posts
I wasn't even paying enough attention to the discussion to know what you're arguing about. I just found it funny that you were pulling a gbaji.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#92Kachi, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 10:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The only irony here is that this time it's others who are ignoring the accepted definition to avoid conceding their mistake. On second thought, I guess it's to be expected that the people who are pulling a gbaji are the ones who agree with gbaji.
#93 Mar 23 2011 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Hating Kachi is so two weeks ago.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#94 Mar 24 2011 at 3:48 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
192 posts
Surely you can liken the nuclear related accidents vs other forms of energy to the same reaction people express about car crashes vs plane crashes.

Quote:
Your chances of being involved in an aircraft accident are about 1 in 11 million. On the other hand, your chances of being killed in an automobile accident are 1 in 5000. [1]


Despite planes being a far, far safer method of transport to cars, people are still more shocked at plane crashes than car crashes. Usually due to them happening less, and affecting more people at once.

Addition: Annoyingly that article tries to disprove the numbers it quotes in the first paragraph, and in doing so makes several blunders (such as working on a mile-for-mile basis, forgetting that planes can hold hundred more passengers at one time than a car), but I cannot seem to find where s/he got the origional quotation from


[1] http://www.crashstuff.com/driving-or-flying-plane-vs-car-accident-statistics/

Edited because I can no longer spell despite properly...


Edited, Mar 24th 2011 5:58am by Xakz
#95 Mar 24 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
I always find it interesting that those statistics are based on an "average number of people killed per passenger mile", or something similar. Which is useful when calculating statistics for an entire population. It doesn't really answer the most relevant question most people are really asking though: "What are my odds of dying if I travel via method A or method B". The absurdity of using passenger miles should be apparent once you realize that the fact that there are more people on a plane doesn't decrease the odds of the plane crashing. Your chance of dying is based on the distance the plane you are in is traveling, and the odds of it crashing over that distance. How many other people may die (or safely make it to their destinations along with you) really doesn't matter.


Silly sidetrack, but I've always found it interesting how such statistics can be manipulated in cases like this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Mar 24 2011 at 4:21 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
gbaji wrote:
I always find it interesting that those statistics are based on an "average number of people killed per passenger mile", or something similar. Which is useful when calculating statistics for an entire population. It doesn't really answer the most relevant question most people are really asking though: "What are my odds of dying if I travel via method A or method B". The absurdity of using passenger miles should be apparent once you realize that the fact that there are more people on a plane doesn't decrease the odds of the plane crashing. Your chance of dying is based on the distance the plane you are in is traveling, and the odds of it crashing over that distance. How many other people may die (or safely make it to their destinations along with you) really doesn't matter.


Silly sidetrack, but I've always found it interesting how such statistics can be manipulated in cases like this.


...

FFS

There is no absurdity to the fact that when there are more people on a plane it increases the risk for deaths in a plane crash. This is how morbidity statistics are calculated. Whether or not the number of passengers affects the likelihood of a plane crash is ultimately beside the point. Your odds of dying are still based on the number of people who fly. That's how odds work.

Those odds are weighed against the odds that YOU will die if you drive the same distance, and arguably how those odds will be affected if more people drive (more cars on the roads equal more accidents) versus if more people fly. Whether it's conceived of as the risk of all the people on the flight flying versus all those same people driving to the destination, or that one person driving while all else remains the same doesn't matter much either way: flying is much safer.

The only differences relevant to population statistics and individual statistics are with respect to how the individual differs from the population. If you are an incredibly safe driver, then maybe flying is riskier for you. Probably not, though.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#97 Mar 24 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Kachi wrote:
There is no absurdity to the fact that when there are more people on a plane it increases the risk for deaths in a plane crash.


Yes. The odds of "someone" dying. But not a specific someone.

Quote:
This is how morbidity statistics are calculated. Whether or not the number of passengers affects the likelihood of a plane crash is ultimately beside the point. Your odds of dying are still based on the number of people who fly.


But not the odds of a single passenger. If I want to know whether *I* am safer driving a car from Los Angeles to New York, or taking a plane, the relevant calculation are the odds of me being a fatality in my car driving that distance, or me being a fatality in a plane flying that distance. The number of other people, while of interest to social statistics on travel modes in general, doesn't actually address the issue of whether it's "safer" from the individuals stand point.

It is incorrect to quote statistics based on passenger miles and make a statement like "Statistics show that you are safer flying in a plane than driving in a car". The reason is because just because one mode may produce a lower death count in total does not mean that it's safer for "you".

Quote:
That's how odds work.


There are different odds though. The house can say it statistically stands to make more money on the roulette wheel if more people are betting on it at any given time. But the odds of *you* winning don't change based on the number of people who put their money down on the same numbers you do. You have to understand the effect you're calculating against and how it affects different players differently.

Quote:
Those odds are weighed against the odds that YOU will die if you drive the same distance, and arguably how those odds will be affected if more people drive (more cars on the roads equal more accidents) versus if more people fly.


That's not what those statistics are doing though. They are calculating the average number of people who will die while traveling X distance using a given method of transport. Every time a passenger jet carrying 200 people arrives safely at its destination, it counts as though 200 cars carrying a single person driving the same distance had arrived safely. To be fair, every time a passenger jet carrying 200 people crash, it counts as though 200 cars had failed to make the same distance. We could argue that those offset (they wont perfectly), but that's still not the correct way to assess the odds to the individual. The correct method is to calculate the total number of plane crashes over X total miles traveled. This gives you a precise accounting of your odds of being in a plane crash.


Like I said earlier, the use of passenger miles presents us with the absurd assumption that by adding more passengers to a plane, we're reducing the odds that the plane will crash. That's clearly not true.


Quote:
Whether it's conceived of as the risk of all the people on the flight flying versus all those same people driving to the destination, or that one person driving while all else remains the same doesn't matter much either way: flying is much safer.


Oh. that may be true. I'm speaking about the methodology though. It's the wrong way to calculate the individuals odds. It's a useful tool for determining a system wide result, but it tells us nothing about the individual odds of each passenger.

Quote:
The only differences relevant to population statistics and individual statistics are with respect to how the individual differs from the population. If you are an incredibly safe driver, then maybe flying is riskier for you. Probably not, though.


That's not relevant to what I'm talking about though.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 3:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Mar 24 2011 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Wow, your understanding of statistics is even worse than I thought.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#99 Mar 24 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,767 posts
Kachi wrote:
Wow, your understanding of statistics is even worse than I thought.


You saying this, doesn't make it so. At the risk of dumbing this down enough for you to grasp what is obvious to some of us:

A man is standing in an airport terminal. He's planning on flying from where he is to somewhere else. He's curious about the odds that he might die in a plane crash. At that moment, for him, his odds are exactly the same as the odds that the plane he's going to get on will crash resulting in his death. Those odds are identical whether he's alone on the plane, or if there are 300 other people on the plane with him. His odds of dying are equal to the odds of the plane crashing in a manner that will result in his death. Period. End of story.

Thus, the odds of any specific traveler dying in a plane crash is equal to the odds of any given plane crashing (fatally) while traveling a number of miles equal to the flight he's taking. If one plane crashes for every 100,000 miles in which planes fly in the US, and he's traveling 1,000 miles by plane, then his odds of dying are 1 in 100.


Counting up the total number of people who've died in plane crashes over a period of time, and then calculating the total number of miles each passenger has flown over that period of time and then dividing one by the other is useful for calculating broad travel statistics, but it does not actually tell the individual traveler his odds of dying on any given trip.


You seriously can't see why? That's just bizarre.


EDIT: Oh. And I think I got the relationship backwards. The calculation you're doing would make his odds of dying increase the more people there are on the plane, not decrease as I said earlier. Here's why:

Passenger miles is a calculation of the total number of passengers who've traveled X distance. Thus, if a plane travels 1000 miles with 1 passenger on it, that's 1000 passenger miles. If that same plane travels the same distance with 300 passengers on it, that's 300,000 passenger miles. If we calculate the rate of fatalities from air travel at say one death per 30 million passenger miles (how many passengers die over time compared to the total number of passenger miles over that same period), then this presents us with a quandary. The plane in the first instance is only going 1000 passenger miles, the plane with 300 people on it is traveling 300,000 passenger miles. Thus, the second case is 300 times more likely to result in fatality based on the statistics (since we're "traveling" 300 times as far relative to the value we're using to calculate our fatality rate). This would lead someone to conclude that he's 300 times more likely to die on that plane than the other.


This is obviously not correct. His odds of dying are the same in each case. What changes is that the "weight" of a plane crash with 300 passengers is greater, since 300 people would die if it crashes. Thus, from a "total air fatality" statistical perspective that plane is at greater risk. But from the point of view of a single passenger, he's not.


Get it yet?

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 7:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Mar 25 2011 at 3:18 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Well, yes, you DID get the relationship backwards, but other than that, there's nothing for ME to get.

It's a lost cause. Move along, Kachi. Move along.

Edit: I'm sure I'll regret making even the most minimal effort, but can you not see how the essential problem your describing exists in ALL statistics? Roughly 50% of doctoral students do not complete their program. Does that mean that I have a 50% chance of not completing my program? Of course not. Maybe my program has less attrition. Maybe my personal abilities drastically improve my odds of success. Statistics (especially morbidity statistics) describe populations. That is what they do.

****, if nothing else, it never ceases to amaze me that you think that you, in all of your infinite wisdom, have identified some glaring fundamental flaw in the world of morbidity statistics where thousands of others who are learned in statistics, actuary, health, and travel, have failed. So realize that when you ask if I "get it," you're actually challenging the cumulative skills of thousands of professionals who would be laughing in your face, in unison, if only they could be graced with this **** that I am seeing.

Edited, Mar 25th 2011 2:40am by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#101 Mar 25 2011 at 6:53 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
I'm sure professional statisticians know how to present different aspects of data and the difference between what is essentially an expected value and a probability of an event occurring.

Your example is also a pretty bad one because that's just the marginal probability and not a more accurate conditional probability that takes other factors into account, which really has nothing to do with the difference between what gbaji is talking about.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 55 All times are in CDT