The important point is that when we look at the topics on which we can know with high confidence what the rational and correct positions are, there are often lots and lots and lots of highly intelligent people who take the wrong positions.
There was a point in history where atheism and antitheism was highly correlated with intelligence—as in Voltaire’s day—but intelligence was not at all correlated with atheism or antitheism.
I suspect that’s still true. Most ‘scientists’ are at least atheists, but if you look across all people with above-average intelligence most of them are theists still.
Intelligence gives people the ability to build taller, stronger, and more effective walls. It doesn’t seem to help to induce people not to build them in the first place, or to tear down existing ones.
There was a point in history where atheism and antitheism was highly correlated with intelligence—as in Voltaire’s day—but intelligence was not at all correlated with atheism or antitheism.
Namely, if A is positively correlated with B, then B is positively correlated with A. B does not have to happen the majority of times A happens for this to be the case.
No, you said, as I quoted, that intelligence was not at all correlated with atheism, despite atheism being highly correlated with intelligence. This is uncontroversially and trivially impossible; if p(A|B)≠p(A) where p(A) and p(B) are positive, then p(B|A)≠p(B).
A corr B means B corr A, but the strength of one correlation doesn’t have anything to do with the strength of the other.
The coefficient of correlation between A and B is the same as the coefficient of correlation between B and A, so this is false. I believe you mean, rather, that having a positive test for a rare disease can still leave you less than 50% likely to have the disease, while having the disease makes you very likely to test positive for it. However, the correlation is still strong in both directions: your chance of having the disease has jumped from “ridiculously unlikely” to just “unlikely” given that positive test.
The coefficient of correlation between A and B is the same as the coefficient of correlation between B and A, so this is false.
No, it’s not false. The vast majority of intelligent people—educated, knowledgeable people—were once theists of one sort of another. The fact that significantly more of them were atheistic/antitheistic than the general population does not change that choosing one at random was still grossly unlikely to produce an AT/AnT.
If you continue to apply a mathematical model that is not being referenced in this context by my use of language, I’m going to become annoyed with you.
The vast majority of intelligent people—educated, knowledgeable people—were once theists of one sort of another. The fact that significantly more of them were atheistic/antitheistic than the general population does not change that choosing one at random was still grossly unlikely to produce an AT/AnT.
So, in other words, you mean precisely what Cyan and I had assumed you meant, but you refuse to acknowledge that the word “correlation” has an unambiguous and universal meaning that differs greatly from your usage of it; if you persist in this, you will misinterpret correlation to mean implication where it does not.
For example, smoking is correlated with lung cancer, but a randomly chosen smoker probably does not have lung cancer.
I don’t know what else to say on this topic, other than that this is not a case of you being contrarian: you are simply wrong, and you should do yourself the favor of admitting it.
ETA: I’m going to leave this thread now, as the delicious irony of catching Annoyance in a tangential error is not a worthy feeling for a rationalist to pursue.
you refuse to acknowledge that the word “correlation” has an unambiguous and universal meaning
It’s not universal. The general language use has a meaning that isn’t the same as the statistical. That domain-specific definition does not apply outside statistics.
If you mean statistical correlation, then corr(x,y) = corr(y,x). I think you mean something more like implication, e.g., your claim is that at one time in the past, atheist implied intelligent but intelligent did not imply atheist.
If the correlation is sufficiently small, it can be lower than the error rate in detecting it.
And though the two concepts are distinct, in this context they’re the same. Implication and statistical correlation can be the same when what’s implied is a likelihood instead of a certainty.
Implication and statistical correlation can be the same when what’s implied is a likelihood instead of a certainty.
I can’t tell if I disagree with you in a substantive way or just in your word usage (i.e., semantics). Can you please translate this assertion into math?
Nice Heart of Darkness reference.
Hm, where’s the Conrad ref? I see a God Emperor of Dune ref (Dune seems pretty popular here, I’ve noticed), but not that.
It’s the whited sepulchre thing; it’s one of the central themes of Heart of Darkness. (Google tells me the original quote is from Matthew 23:27).
Thanks.
The important point is that when we look at the topics on which we can know with high confidence what the rational and correct positions are, there are often lots and lots and lots of highly intelligent people who take the wrong positions.
There was a point in history where atheism and antitheism was highly correlated with intelligence—as in Voltaire’s day—but intelligence was not at all correlated with atheism or antitheism.
I suspect that’s still true. Most ‘scientists’ are at least atheists, but if you look across all people with above-average intelligence most of them are theists still.
Intelligence gives people the ability to build taller, stronger, and more effective walls. It doesn’t seem to help to induce people not to build them in the first place, or to tear down existing ones.
You keep using this word “correlated”. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Namely, if A is positively correlated with B, then B is positively correlated with A. B does not have to happen the majority of times A happens for this to be the case.
I said highly correlated. A corr B means B corr A, but the strength of one correlation doesn’t have anything to do with the strength of the other.
No, you said, as I quoted, that intelligence was not at all correlated with atheism, despite atheism being highly correlated with intelligence. This is uncontroversially and trivially impossible; if p(A|B)≠p(A) where p(A) and p(B) are positive, then p(B|A)≠p(B).
The coefficient of correlation between A and B is the same as the coefficient of correlation between B and A, so this is false. I believe you mean, rather, that having a positive test for a rare disease can still leave you less than 50% likely to have the disease, while having the disease makes you very likely to test positive for it. However, the correlation is still strong in both directions: your chance of having the disease has jumped from “ridiculously unlikely” to just “unlikely” given that positive test.
No, it’s not false. The vast majority of intelligent people—educated, knowledgeable people—were once theists of one sort of another. The fact that significantly more of them were atheistic/antitheistic than the general population does not change that choosing one at random was still grossly unlikely to produce an AT/AnT.
If you continue to apply a mathematical model that is not being referenced in this context by my use of language, I’m going to become annoyed with you.
So, in other words, you mean precisely what Cyan and I had assumed you meant, but you refuse to acknowledge that the word “correlation” has an unambiguous and universal meaning that differs greatly from your usage of it; if you persist in this, you will misinterpret correlation to mean implication where it does not.
For example, smoking is correlated with lung cancer, but a randomly chosen smoker probably does not have lung cancer.
I don’t know what else to say on this topic, other than that this is not a case of you being contrarian: you are simply wrong, and you should do yourself the favor of admitting it.
ETA: I’m going to leave this thread now, as the delicious irony of catching Annoyance in a tangential error is not a worthy feeling for a rationalist to pursue.
It’s not universal. The general language use has a meaning that isn’t the same as the statistical. That domain-specific definition does not apply outside statistics.
You are simply wrong.
If you mean statistical correlation, then corr(x,y) = corr(y,x). I think you mean something more like implication, e.g., your claim is that at one time in the past, atheist implied intelligent but intelligent did not imply atheist.
If the correlation is sufficiently small, it can be lower than the error rate in detecting it.
And though the two concepts are distinct, in this context they’re the same. Implication and statistical correlation can be the same when what’s implied is a likelihood instead of a certainty.
I can’t tell if I disagree with you in a substantive way or just in your word usage (i.e., semantics). Can you please translate this assertion into math?