fafnir wrote: ↑
<snip>
Again... Pinker. If it was 2002 his opinions might be relevant.
An entirely unevidenced opinion. A couple of recent articles that suggest that you really don’t have much of a leg to stand on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/book ... inker.html
https://reason.com/video/2021/10/15/ste ... ves-lives/
https://www.chronicle.com/article/steve ... nary-drift
Even if two out of the three are less than impressed. But that says more about them than about Pinker.
fafnir wrote: ↑
<snip>
.... Sagan just isn't relevant.
Again, that is only your entirely unevidenced opinion. You seem to be of the view that those who are “the anti-thesis to the enlightenment” have a point; if not then Sagan is entirely relevant. Think you need to decide on which side of the fence you want to come down on – because you look to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
fafnir wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑
<snip>
But knowing that such distributions are typical – though not the only game in town – seems a useful point of reference. Models
do have some value even if they’re not perfect. Which you seem reluctant to give much credence to.
Not at all, models can be useful.... but I don't see the point of using needlessly specific ones when we are almost just talking about mean and spread properties that primary school children understand.
Don’t think many “primary school children” are voting. It’s the adults who are and who are clueless about basic science that are the problem.
But maybe you could then explain how to get from that joint probability distribution on agreeableness to what percentage of “females” are more agreeable than “males”? Probably not terribly useful for that trait, but a great deal of evidence that such measures are substantially more useful and relevant for other traits.
You say “needlessly” but show no ability or willingness to prove or even justify that claim. Methinks your “anti-intellectual and anti-science sentiments” are showing again.
fafnir wrote: ↑
<snip>
The Guardian, honestly? I'm trying to read through that and it's just a shotgun blast of vaguely statistical complaining. The aircon thing? .... I don't see the word "normal" in there. I don't think the normal distribution is necessary for any of these discussions. Somehow the Guardian manage without mentioning it.
No doubt the air conditioning thing is a bit of a stretch. But you seriously think that that is all there is to the issue? Quillette’s Claire Lehmann:
Consider the following fiasco. In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration announced it was slashing the recommended dosage of the sleeping pill Ambien in half—but only for women. The FDA had known for 20 years that women metabolized the active ingredient, zolpidem, more slowly than men, but the dosage for men and women had been exactly the same since the drug had been on the market.
https://www.commentary.org/articles/cla ... xx-factor/
And that’s only the tip of the iceberg, although Lehman herself is kinda clueless about the developing consensus that sex and gender are entirely different kettles of fish. But “strawmaning” your opponents’ arguments is rather intellectually dishonest or lazy at best and suggests one has an axe to grind.
In any case, are you touting the Guardian as any sort of exemplar? That they, including the author of that article, are clueless about normal distributions is no mark in their favour. No doubt they have their good points but, as they’ve been known for the transgendered calling too many shots there, we might reasonably view them with a skeptical eye.
fafnir wrote: ↑
<snip>
Of course. Not all processes produce normally distributed output. Most don't.
And your evidence for that “most don’t” is what? Although I and many others have conceded that there are probably few processes that produce exactly “normally distributed output".
But that’s not really the point. The point is that that
model is a reasonably accurate basis or yardstick for a rather large number of cases. Why many quite credible scientists and mathematicians argue, even if somewhat inaccurately, that “normal distributions are ubiquitous”:
https://ekamperi.github.io/mathematics/ ... itous.html
https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files ... tahl96.pdf
As the description of the precise use that Galton made of the normal curve would take us too far afield, we shall only discuss his explanation for the ubiquity of the normal distribution. .... This is, of course, an informal restatement of Laplace’s Central Limit Theorem. The same argument had been advanced by Herschel. Galton was fully aware that conditions (1-4) never actually occur in nature and tried to show that they were unnecessary.
You may wish to take up your objections with them.
fafnir wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑[quote=fafnir post_id=506472
<snip>
As I’ve said before ..., ideologues are less of an issue than discrediting them in the eyes of the public, particularly the ignorant or uncommitted.
You think framing the argument in terms of your ideology will convince people currently being mislead by a different ideology? Wouldn't it be better to start where your audience currently are? Mislead by the opposing ideologues.
My “ideology”? What might that be? Science? Rather questionable, and very uncommon, to call science an ideology.
No doubt many, including many so-called scientists, are guilty of scientism, Pinker notwithstanding. And science is clearly predicated on a number of axioms, if not on some “faith”:
I have said that science is impossible without faith. By this I do not mean that the faith on which science depends is religious in nature or involves the acceptance of any of the dogmas of the ordinary religious creeds, yet without faith that nature is subject to law there can be no science. No amount of demonstration can ever prove that nature is subject to law.
http://asounder.org/resources/weiner_humanuse.pdf
But those are clearly, or often, framed as provisional, as working hypotheses; rather doubt that many of the religious or the woke would say the same about their articles of faith. Not sure that you recognize or appreciate the differences.
As for where my “audiences currently are”, you think my various Medium articles and conversations with wokeish editors at Wikipedia aren’t speaking to them? If you have any better ideas then I’m all ears. Maybe some examples of what you’ve done? ...
fafnir wrote: ↑
Steersman wrote: ↑Such ideologues may well have something of a point when it comes to the issue of “equality of opportunity” – not just by sex but by race as well, and presumably by other measures.
They do not have a point, they are a malign cancer.
Sheesh. You’re almost just as bad as “them” for being narrow-minded and dogmatic: “4 legs good, 2 legs bad”. You seriously think that there are NO disparities in “equality of opportunity”, not just in the land of the free and the home of the brave but even in many other Western countries? Your own earlier comments about blacks in America suggested you recognized such disparities.
fafnir wrote: ↑
<snip>
Of course they are deliberately distorting scientific facts. .... They just have an entirely different epistemology that doesn't believe in objective truth.
Glad you agree about “deliberately distorting”. And I’d largely agree with you about “entirely different epistemology”.
However, that “deliberately distorting” is rather too ubiquitous and hardly unique to those with that “different epistemology”. One might reasonably argue that those who refuse to accept the standard scientific definitions for the sexes – “gametes, baby!” – are just as guilty of that crime. One can’t very well, or very wisely, throw stones if one is living in a glass house ...