Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > Anything Else... > Chat > Hot topic arena

Hot topic arena As the title suggest, this sub-board is dedicated to non-astrological talks on interesting, important or controversial topics.


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Unread 12-21-2019, 04:18 PM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,008
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
It seems you don't understand how evidence works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...mply_causation

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables – they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument.

However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence. Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blinded studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation.

Correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored.
-----------------------------

To put it in simple terms so you can understand. You are not going to find many (if any) studies that will point you to a direct causation in areas such as these, because it would be imposible to interview every single person that is poor, or not doing well, or find enough variables too similar to analyze. Thus we base data on correlation in areas such as sociology, which found in high amounts accross multiple groups at different points in time, provide you with data to formulate a theory. What you do is take different perspectives, which is what I have done regarding the issue.

You can keep repeating the slogan as many times as you need, but it just reveals the little understanding you posses in such matters. You don't seem to understand how evidence works.
I have not been dismissing correlation. Nor did I say it's invalid. However, you claimed causation, and the stuff you quoted seems to merely show correlation.

Also, remind me again why it's OK to call Americans Americans but not ok to call third-worlders third-worlders. I lost track of our exchange.


Last edited by wan; 12-21-2019 at 04:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Unread 12-21-2019, 05:00 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
I don't think it's bad. It is merely incomplete, and requires me to furnish more details to make it work. Anyway, I don't think having a good example is super-important. I was just trying to make you see my point. But all you seem to do is ignore what the point the example is trying to illustrate, and instead, get bogged down in criticizing the details of said example. This does not serve much purpose.

Only if you treat it as a legal argument. If you approach it as a philosophical debate, you do not require much evidence. How does using scientific data tell us whether the fetus deserves human rights? I agree that one might need scientific data to determine whether the fetus is human life. But scientific data do not tell us whether the fetus deserves protection. The latter is a philosophical issue.
Its just a bad example wan, because you portraited a situation in which you jumped to a conclusion without using evidence, claiming there was evidence.

Its not, because if it is about "its right vs its wrong" is just a matter of oppinion, which would have no value debating. If you are debating is because of the legal implications - otherwise you can't have a debate to begin with. Unless either party presents the other with evidence to the contrary, you end up encased in your perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
How do you know that the scientific method would work to describe anything that happened before the Big Bang? We don't even know what existed before the Big Bang. For all we know, the scientific method, evidence etc etc might have no place in pre-Big Bang states of existence.

If what you say is true, then this debate will have been resolved a long time ago. And we will all have reached the conclusion that there is no God (since as you pointed out, there is no evidence for God). But we all know this debate is still raging on, and some people still believe in God. Therefore, you are wrong.

The big bang theory exists because there is evidence to support it (the universe is in constant expansion which would suggest it had a point of origin). Its not that some guy had a bright idea and just went with it. And the reason there is a consensus among the scientific community, is because there is evidence.

The discussion about the existance of God is an irrational debate, because there is no evidence to directly support it - and it always ends the same way, some people believing in it, and other rejecting, but never reaching a conclusion. What you can have is a debate about the nature/characteristics of God, as we've had on the forum, but this only occurs in placed were, in this example, no one questions the God exists argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Then let me try and come up with more examples. How about this, should we have the death penalty? This debate requires no evidence, as far as I can see. Heck, you can even have "debates" with someone over whether you should have sushi or burrito for lunch. This also requires no scientific method nor evidence. Anyway, my point is that, there are discussions where the scientific method has no place in.
Actually you do. The argument in favour of the death pentalty is about the pontentil danger of criminals being free one day, the economic impact of having people locked up, and whether it is an intrusion in an individuals human right to life. The debate is about looking at the data and evidence to support both camps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
If India is truly doing so well economically, then perhaps it does not belong in the ranks of the third-world. Also, if India is so great, why do Indians still try so hard to immigrate to the West?
So then by your admission the division of dividing countries in world blocks would then not be accurate, if you think India might not belong there.
People migrate for economic reasons.

Because in the west the current mechanisms of social mobility (through capitalist economies) are smoother, faster and easier to achieve. So individuals find it easier to move up in capitalists societies. This does not imply that the economy of their native nation is bad, the other one is just better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Indeed, it shows correlation. However, you claimed causation. And correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, you are the one who does not understand how things work.

I never said better prepared individuals are going to fare worse. What are you on about?

I never said your data is intellectual dishonesty. I said the fact you keep refusing to back up your claims using your own words is intellectual dishonesty.

Do you agree or disagree that people should back up their claims with their own words, instead of throwing down a link?

Where did I say I expected you to cite every single study?
Gona answer this on the next post.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Unread 12-21-2019, 05:20 PM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,008
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
Its just a bad example wan, because you portraited a situation in which you jumped to a conclusion without using evidence, claiming there was evidence.
You still don't get it. I never said my example is super-good. And if you want to call it bad, to be honest I don't care. All I am doing is try to show you a point. The example is just the way to help you see that point. But you keep attacking my example as bad. This does not take us anywhere, because the example itself is not important. It is not the "meat and potato" of my argument. Heck, I will even agree with you that my example is "bad", just to shut you up. So, yes, my example is bad. There. Are you satisfied now? Are you finally going to deal with my point?

Quote:
Its not, because if it is about "its right vs its wrong" is just a matter of oppinion, which would have no value debating.
I did not ask you whether a debate has value or not. The important thing is that it *IS* a debate, a debate where the scientific method has no place.

Quote:
If you are debating is because of the legal implications - otherwise you can't have a debate to begin with.
Prove that I cannot have a debate without the legal implications.

Quote:
Unless either party presents the other with evidence to the contrary, you end up encased in your perspective.
What the heck is "encased in your perspective"? English please.

Quote:
The big bang theory exists because there is evidence to support it (the universe is in constant expansion which would suggest it had a point of origin).
I am not debating whether the Big Bang theory is true or not. I am asking you what existed before the Big Bang. Further, I want you to show that the scientific method is capable of explaining to us what existed before the Big Bang.

Quote:
The discussion about the existance of God is an irrational debate,
Nobody asked for your opinion whether this debate is irrational. The only two things that matter are 1. it is a debate, and 2. it is a debate where the scientific method has no place. Do you dispute either?

Quote:
because there is no evidence to directly support it - and it always ends the same way, some people believing in it, and other rejecting, but never reaching a conclusion.
The fact some people believe in God despite having no evidence proves that it's possible to have a debate where evidence is not required. Do you dispute this?

Quote:
What you can have is a debate about the nature/characteristics of God, as we've had on the forum
Sorry but you don't get to tell me what debates I should have.

Quote:
Actually you do. The argument in favour of the death pentalty is about the pontentil danger of criminals being free one day, the economic impact of having people locked up, and whether it is an intrusion in an individuals human right to life. The debate is about looking at the data and evidence to support both camps.
A bunch of evidence only shows facts. However, it is still up to the human agent to make a moral judgment about whether we SHOULD abolish the death penalty or not. And in a debate where moral judgments are involved, facts and evidence have little place. You and someone else can be both looking at one piece of evidence, such as potential danger of criminals being free one day, and reach very different conclusions. You might say we should abolish the death penalty and he might say we shouldn't.

Allow me to give you another example, since you seem too dumb to realize that there are discussions where the scientific method has no place. For example, say you have a crush on a girl. You want to pursue her. You tell your friend about it. Then, he starts to pursue her as well. You might now collar him and ask him why he is such a snake. This is also an argument, and it's one where the scientific method has no place.

Quote:
So then by your admission the division of dividing countries in world blocks would then not be accurate, if you think India might not belong there.
Nope. I admit to nothing. The "third-world" is a good way to categorize people.

Quote:
People migrate for economic reasons.

Because in the west the current mechanisms of social mobility (through capitalist economies) are smoother, faster and easier to achieve. So individuals find it easier to move up in capitalists societies. This does not imply that the economy of their native nation is bad, the other one is just better.
Prove that the current mechanisms of social mobility is what caused Indians to migrate. You are claiming causation again. This time, try not to just throw down a link.

Last edited by wan; 12-21-2019 at 05:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Unread 12-21-2019, 05:30 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
I have not been dismissing correlation. Nor did I say it's invalid. However, you claimed causation, and the stuff you quoted seems to merely show correlation.
Because when you have multiple instances of correlation from various different perspectives you can deduce causation as a valid instance. Once you analyze the different indicators from different groups migrting to different nations you begin to see that.

For example: Venezuelan migrants to Argentina or Brazil.

- In Brazil, venezuelan migrants have caused an explosion in crime in northern brazil.
- In Argentina, venezuelan migrants have caused no problems.

Statistical data from the region has shown that among venezuelans fleeing their country (because of socialism), the majority of unqualified/unskilled blue collar workers have moved to neighboring countries, such as Brazil. On the other hand, the qualified highly educated have moved to countries such as Argentina. Many who are in Brazil have struggled to find employment, while those in Argentina have higher rates of employment.

Same ethnicity and same culture among Venezuelans migrants to both countries. The only diference is the socio-economics of the individuals. This is a huge indicator that crime is caused by a lack of education.

You compare this numbers with the rest of correlations among many different groups that revel similar factors.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Unread 12-21-2019, 06:42 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
You still don't get it. I never said my example is super-good. And if you want to call it bad, to be honest I don't care. All I am doing is try to show you a point. The example is just the way to help you see that point. But you keep attacking my example as bad. This does not take us anywhere, because the example itself is not important. It is not the "meat and potato" of my argument. Heck, I will even agree with you that my example is "bad", just to shut you up. So, yes, my example is bad. There. Are you satisfied now? Are you finally going to deal with my point?

I did not ask you whether a debate has value or not. The important thing is that it *IS* a debate, a debate where the scientific method has no place.

Prove that I cannot have a debate without the legal implications.

What the heck is "encased in your perspective"? English please.

I am not debating whether the Big Bang theory is true or not. I am asking you what existed before the Big Bang. Further, I want you to show that the scientific method is capable of explaining to us what existed before the Big Bang.

Nobody asked for your opinion whether this debate is irrational. The only two things that matter are 1. it is a debate, and 2. it is a debate where the scientific method has no place. Do you dispute either?

The fact some people believe in God despite having no evidence proves that it's possible to have a debate where evidence is not required. Do you dispute this?
No wan, your example was just bad.

The reason the discussion about God isn't a debte (an exchange of ideas), because there is nothing one party can say to the other to change its mind, because there is no evidence to present on the matter. The other options were just more bad examples on your part, because all of those examples used evidence to support either side.

The moral argument is a matter of opinion, ergo not a debate. If you think something is wrong "just because", and I think it is right "just because", then it isn't a debate. That is the part you don't seem to understand. In order for either party to show the other they are wrong, evidence has to be presented, to support the claim. That is what constitues a "debate".

If you say the sky is yellow, and I say the sky is blue and neither of us presents evidence, we are not gonna have a debate.

This is why your idea of how a debate is supposed to work is wrong, because you are implying that evidence is not needed to make a point, and sometimes debates are just matter of opinion. They aren't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Sorry but you don't get to tell me what debates I should have.
Actually I do. Whether you want to obey the correct form, or keep encased in your mentality is your choice though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
A bunch of evidence only shows facts. However, it is still up to the human agent to make a moral judgment about whether we SHOULD abolish the death penalty or not. And in a debate where moral judgments are involved, facts and evidence have little place. You and someone else can be both looking at one piece of evidence, such as potential danger of criminals being free one day, and reach very different conclusions. You might say we should abolish the death penalty and he might say we shouldn't.

Allow me to give you another example, since you seem too dumb to realize that there are discussions where the scientific method has no place. For example, say you have a crush on a girl. You want to pursue her. You tell your friend about it. Then, he starts to pursue her as well. You might now collar him and ask him why he is such a snake. This is also an argument, and it's one where the scientific method has no place.
Your example isn't debate, its again just presenting a problem. You are not even mentioning what is the expected resolution to your problem. That is why it fails, again, as an example.

At this point you are trying to argue that you do not require evidence to debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Prove that the current mechanisms of social mobility is what caused Indians to migrate. You are claiming causation again. This time, try not to just throw down a link.
Because the majority of surveys done on migrants around the world reveal so. Direct opinion from migrants.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Unread 12-21-2019, 07:03 PM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,008
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
No wan, your example was just bad.
And? I already conceded that my example was bad. And it was to get you to shut up about it, and start addressing the really important stuff. But do you do it? No.

Quote:
The reason the discussion about God isn't a debte (an exchange of ideas),
You need to prove that the discussion about God isn't a debate. You cant just say "because I say so".

Also, I asked you to show that the scientific method can be used to explain what happened before the Big bang. Where is your reply to this?

Quote:
because there is nothing one party can say to the other to change its mind, because there is no evidence to present on the matter.
So what that there is no evidence? Does this make it not a debate? Why does it need to have evidence in order to be a debate?

Quote:
The other options were just more bad examples on your part, because all of those examples used evidence to support either side.
So what that you think my examples are "bad"? Do you mean to tell me that your brain is only capable of dealing with examples? Is your brain capable of comprehending the main thrust of my argument at all?

Quote:
The moral argument is a matter of opinion, ergo not a debate.
1. Prove that moral argument is a matter of opinion.
2. Prove that moral argument is not a debate. Hint: just because you do not like something, it does not mean it is now not a debate.

Quote:

If you think something is wrong "just because", and I think it is right "just because", then it isn't a debate.
Why not?

Quote:

That is the part you don't seem to understand. In order for either party to show the other they are wrong, evidence has to be presented, to support the claim. That is what constitues a "debate".
You need to prove that in order to have a debate, evidence is absolutely necessary.

Quote:
If you say the sky is yellow, and I say the sky is blue and neither of us presents evidence, we are not gonna have a debate.
You are talking about matters of fact. Yes I agree that in discussions about matters of fact, evidence is required. However, matters of fact are not the only kind of debate that exists.
Quote:
This is why your idea of how a debate is supposed to work is wrong, because you are implying that evidence is not needed to make a point,
You need to prove that evidence is always required to make a point.

Quote:
and sometimes debates are just matter of opinion. They aren't.
What is your definition of a debate?

Quote:
Actually I do. Whether you want to obey the correct form, or keep encased in your mentality is your choice though.
Very interesting. Why don't you prove that you are able to tell me what debate to have by ordering me to start debating whatever topic you can think of. I want to see if you truly possess the power to compel me to only debate the things you want. Also, I don't think you are one to decide what the "correct form" is. I mean, you don't even know that one is supposed to back up one's claim using one's own words. Apparently, you think by linking to someone else' work means you are "debating". Haha.

Quote:
Your example isn't debate, its again just presenting a problem. You are not even mentioning what is the expected resolution to your problem. That is why it fails, again, as an example.
So what that my example "failed"? Do you think examples are very important? Do you think by criticizing my examples, you can avoid dealing with my main point?

Quote:
At this point you are trying to argue that you do not require evidence to debate
Indeed I sometimes don't. If your claim is that it is always necessary to have evidence in order to have a debate, you need to prove it.

Quote:
Because the majority of surveys done on migrants around the world reveal so. Direct opinion from migrants.
So migrants never lie on surveys. Is this what you are telling me?

Last edited by wan; 12-21-2019 at 07:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Unread 12-21-2019, 07:12 PM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,008
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
Because when you have multiple instances of correlation from various different perspectives you can deduce causation as a valid instance.
Then prove it. Prove that when there are multiple correlations, that means a causal relationship exists. Also, do you admit that you claimed causation? And that the stuff you linked to only showed correlation? That you think your correlational data somehow proves causation?

Ps: why do you think immigrants obeying the laws of their host countries is some kind of achievement?

Last edited by wan; 12-21-2019 at 07:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Unread 12-21-2019, 07:39 PM
SunConjunctUranus SunConjunctUranus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabloes View Post
A sensitive topic but do you see terrorism and the resulting xenophobia in Western and Northern Europe to ever decline?
Never been to Western Europe, but what you percieved as a terrorism is a part of spiritual growth to summon their holy spirit at the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem. This is not a hot topic among medieval monk, as far as I know. Pardon my interruption.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Unread 12-21-2019, 08:05 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
And? I already conceded that my example was bad. And it was to get you to shut up about it, and start addressing the really important stuff. But do you do it? No.

You need to prove that the discussion about God isn't a debate. You cant just say "because I say so".

Also, I asked you to show that the scientific method can be used to explain what happened before the Big bang. Where is your reply to this?

So what that there is no evidence? Does this make it not a debate? Why does it need to have evidence in order to be a debate?

So what that you think my examples are "bad"? Do you mean to tell me that your brain is only capable of dealing with examples? Is your brain capable of comprehending the main thrust of my argument at all?

1. Prove that moral argument is a matter of opinion.
2. Prove that moral argument is not a debate. Hint: just because you do not like something, it does not mean it is now not a debate.


You need to prove that in order to have a debate, evidence is absolutely necessary.
You are asking me to prove to you, that what you say isn't true. You are demanding evidence. On this very debate that we are having now, you are doing nothing more than demanding for evidence that what I say is correct. Ergo, you are not satisfied with my opinion, and you are asking for evidence.

Your own absurdity when trying to explain debates, is the proof you are demanding all along. Have you believed anything you said was correct, you wouldn't demand evidence to support my claim.

Your argument has been eaten by your own actions. There is your proof wan.

Look at the following quotes you have made:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
You need to prove that evidence is always required to make a point.
You are literally asking for evidence, on a statement that says that evidence isn't required to make a point. Its ridiculous wan.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Unread 12-21-2019, 08:20 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Then prove it. Prove that when there are multiple correlations, that means a causal relationship exists. Also, do you admit that you claimed causation? And that the stuff you linked to only showed correlation? That you think your correlational data somehow proves causation?

Ps: why do you think immigrants obeying the laws of their host countries is some kind of achievement?
Yes because when start looking at correlation between variables that occur at multiple instances, in diferent situations, from many perspectives you reach causality by default, by presenting pool samples that eliminate most variables except for the correlation. If the correlation is the only sustainable variable across multiple samples.

I posted a small example of what I was saying, because I'm not going to quote to you 25 studies on poverty and education rates and how it contributes to the rise of crime in certain communities, because there is a question of space and time.

The problem is that, rather than talk about my point, you just made a claim that it was intellectual dishonesty, and proceed to try to discredit my argument rather than refute it, while resorting to use absurd comparison and dismissing the valuable use of data and evidence.

While correlation does not prove causation, most of the times it does. And in areas where direct evidence is hard to find, it is the only viable model you can use.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.