-->
@Athias
Sounds reasonable, but it's not.
right
there's still a non-insignificant gap between "best-guess-risk" and "actual-risk"
Scamdemic
Posts
Total:
99
-->
@3RU7AL
there's still a non-insignificant gap between "best-guess-risk" and "actual-risk"
Exactly. It is still guess work. Regardless of how many people one compiles under some category--variation nothwithstanding--an individual's chances at a certain event is not affected by the compilation or grouping. What does it matter, for example, that a sample of French Polynesian men of the same weight, height, age, vaccination status, geographic location, etc. exhibit a particular result? If I were to contract COVID-19 and die from it, my chances of dying from COVID-19 would've been 100%. If I were to contract (including all possible subsequent contractions) COVID-19, and survive, my chances of dying from COVID-19 would be 0%. Same as if I didn't contract the virus at all.
When one states another's risk with respect to demographics, risk is essentially tantamount to, "excluding all variation within the domain of my assumptive parameters, I declare you, an individual, have 95% chance of exhibiting this particular response--excuse me, I forgot "as a member of your group"--not because of your individual response, but because of the sample number of those who participated in my study exhibited a trend in their respective responses using metrics which personally satisfy me."
A number of patents on “coronaviruses” are being used as proof by conspiracy-minded people online that the COVID-19 coronavirus was made in a laboratory
- The word “coronavirus” does not identify a single virus but rather an entire subfamily of viruses, and all of these patents are related to the SARS coronavirus or to coronaviruses that affect birds or pigs
THERE WAS NO COVID-19 VACCINE UNTIL 2020.
-->
@FLRW
A number of patents on “coronaviruses” are being used as proof by conspiracy-minded people online that the COVID-19 coronavirus was made in a laboratory
COVID was created in a laboratory--one's being "conspiracy-minded notwithstanding.
The word “coronavirus” does not identify a single virus but rather an entire subfamily of viruses
Coronavirus does identify a single virus; what it DOES NOT DO is identify every single STRAIN which is primarily characterized by the symptoms they produce.
and all of these patents are related to the SARS coronavirus or to coronaviruses that affect birds or pigs
Please either demonstrate or reference the patents to which you are referring. Because I've read something to another effect.
THERE WAS NO COVID-19 VACCINE UNTIL 2020.
To your knowledge; but yes, there was no official vaccine until 2020.
-->
@Athias
What you or I care about is not the subject of debate. Any impressions on my "tone" are entirely irrelevant; hence, unwelcome.
This is a debate site, your style and strategy makes it impossible to hold a discussion. In your previous two replies - and these subsequent three - you completely and systematically avoid addressing any portion of my primary argument or it’s justification - you barely even mention my central contention, nor any of the points used to under pin it - with the exception of a throwaway assertion for which you use to avoid dealing with anything I said - the remainder of your replies are side bars, unrelated to the central point and are dancing around the actual contention.
Your replies are systematically evading any actual discussion about what is being debated - and your ridiculous focus on raising 1000 sub arguments without any cohesive counter argument.
The strategy you employ not only allows you to not have a debate in any of the actual arguments raised; but seems deliberately targeted at driving an entire topic deliberately off the rails with incessant quote laddering, that precludes structured reply.
You may not like taking criticism of your ability and style; but the way you are attempting to respond is not really a debate on an argument - those things attempt to provide structured justifications or rebuttals on a point being raised or justified - it is a complete evasion of debate, confusing the blurting out that someone is wrong, is a substitute for an explanation - and calling you on out on behaviour antithetical to holding a debate on debate website is not just valid - it’s is necessary.
Your replies are systematically evading any actual discussion about what is being debated - and your ridiculous focus on raising 1000 sub arguments without any cohesive counter argument.
The strategy you employ not only allows you to not have a debate in any of the actual arguments raised; but seems deliberately targeted at driving an entire topic deliberately off the rails with incessant quote laddering, that precludes structured reply.
You may not like taking criticism of your ability and style; but the way you are attempting to respond is not really a debate on an argument - those things attempt to provide structured justifications or rebuttals on a point being raised or justified - it is a complete evasion of debate, confusing the blurting out that someone is wrong, is a substitute for an explanation - and calling you on out on behaviour antithetical to holding a debate on debate website is not just valid - it’s is necessary.
Your impressions of my style are irrelevant.
Assertion
Your incapacity to understand does not render incoherence.
Ad Hom. I explained their incoherence in the previous post. Insulting me instead of dealing with it is fallacious.
Your disjoint replies that fail to make a consistent argument at all - which I pointed out - makes it incoherent.
"Seem" is not an argument.
Non sequitor. The paragraph makes a point: the point is not rendered invalid because I used the word “seem”
Seem once again is not an argument.
Non sequitor. The paragraph makes a point: the point is not rendered invalid because I used the word “seem”
You require instruction on how and why humans and dice are different?
Straw man. I require you to explain why the cited difference impacts the comparison. You are misrepresenting my objection, and attacking this misrepresentation.
A non sequitur is a conclusion which doesn't logically extend a premise or previously stated argument. I assumed you knew what it was. So when I declare your conclusion a "non sequitur" I am in fact stating that your conclusion does not reflect my premise or previously stated argument. That is, the dispute is not the "validity" of probability.
Irrelevant / What you cited was a statement not a conclusion; thus non-sequitor doesn’t apply.
Nope, not even in the slightest.
Assertion.
Probabilities represents the occurrence of an event with respect to ALL KNOWN possible events.
Irrelevant. Two descriptions can be true at the same time. Also a non-sequitor - that my description is wrong does not follow from your description.
an estimation of an event given known conditions by summing the impacts of [all known] factors that cause the results of an event to be different.
False. Factors that cause the events absolutely need not be known to estimate probabilities. The point of my statement is that the opposite is true - and indeed a key reason why probability is useful .
Not an objection; they're questions. Does it matter? You tell me.
Then it’s irrelevant.
And how have you controlled for this?
This is covered in the above parts of the post which you ignored (note: this is an example of your disjoint incoherence which precludes reasoned debate - taking items in isolation not caring or forgetting that they are covered as a wider part of the argument)
You mean your attempt to compare people to dice? People aren't dice isn't an empty objection; it's a fact.
Another text book Straw man. My objection is not that you said humans were dice, or that they are the same as dice. My contention is that claiming the conclusion that my comparison is invalid does not follow from the premise that humans are dice are different in multiple ways - a non sequitor.
Your argument would only be valid if a key difference has a critical impact on the comparison being drawn. Which it doesn’t.
Your argument would only be valid if a key difference has a critical impact on the comparison being drawn. Which it doesn’t.
Do you know what an objection is? Because that wasn't one. It was clarification.
“an expression or feeling of disapproval or opposition; a reason for disagreeing.”
It was indeed an objection; by definition. An empty one as it provides no justification. It was a clear expression of opposition, and suggested a reason for disagreeing.
It was indeed an objection; by definition. An empty one as it provides no justification. It was a clear expression of opposition, and suggested a reason for disagreeing.
How does one test for this representation?
Covered in the remainder of the posts you dismissed. Again - this is why your posts are disjoint and incoherent.
Then you've submitted an irrelevant point to the purview of this discussion.
No: you contended I meant something I did not, and attacked it. The issue is not my relevance, but that you made a straw man.
This is nonsensical.
Bare assertion. Why?
If the risk is not an explicit prediction of what would happen to an individual personally, why would would it be an explicit prediction considering a composite of individuals?
For the reasons I detailed at length my previous post, and to which I was redirecting you.
This is FALLACIOUS REASONING.
Bare assertion - you provide no attempt to justify the conclusion. The conclusion that the reasoning is fallacious does not follow from your question, even if rephrased - rendering this yet another Non sequitur.
"Seem" is not an argument.
Non sequitor. The paragraph makes a point: the point is not rendered invalid because I used the word “seem”
You have the detail, but not the validation.
Bare assertion. What part of my validation do you not agree with?
This acknowledgement of your limitations doesn't speak to fact, much less validate your reasoning in lieu:
Bare assertion. I’ve explained why it’s accurate and valid. Saying it isn’t, is not a valid argument.
No, it was an argument. You stated an effect and cause. Here, let me try:
It wasn’t an argument - which requires premise and conclusion. Neither premise nor conclusion were present - it simply described seatbelts in the context of group probability.
I also explained why it was wasn’t circular (which you ignored)
I also explained why it was wasn’t circular (which you ignored)
A bullet proof vest….
Straw man. You misrepresent my argument again despite me correcting you.
Try:
A bullet proof vest does not decrease your chance of death by being effective in every single scenario where bullets are involved - but by effective in a specific subset of those scenarios.
Not circular.
Try:
A bullet proof vest does not decrease your chance of death by being effective in every single scenario where bullets are involved - but by effective in a specific subset of those scenarios.
Not circular.
The argument above which has not been substantiated with valid reasoning.
He asserts…
Income = measure of logic?
Straw man. The point is that success of actuarial predictions speaks to the validity of those predictions.
Proving "too much"?
The fallacy of “proving too much”. Not heard of it
Non sequitur and straw man arguments ARE NOT mutually exclusive. And I know what each are.
An argument may misrepresent your position AND not follow from the premise - but your only stated objection was that it misrepresented your position (which it didnt), which makes it a straw man, and not a nonsequitor.
No, they don't.
Bare Assertion.
No, they're not. Absent of sufficient controls, samples are composites of individual instances; not predictive.
My first principles analysis of populations and methodology explains the controls, and why they are sufficient. Your reply here implies doing so is indeed predictive.
Your objection misrepresents my argument - as if I don’t argue the addition of sufficient controls - that’s a straw man.
Your objection misrepresents my argument - as if I don’t argue the addition of sufficient controls - that’s a straw man.
I've seen above and not it does not.
Bare assertion.
And the reasoning you believe justifies this is fallacious.
Bare assertion.
I do not entertain FALLACIOUS REASONING.
Bare assertion
No, it isn't. The dispute is whether the sampling of so-called "group data" can justify a "predictive argument" about an individual who has been ascribed to said group.
You've straw-manned this dispute. That isn't just an accusation.
No. Very no.
You suggest I made a straw man “by suggesting that the dispute is over whether statistics can account for individual factors.”
You then go in to say that the reason statistics can’t draw valid inferences is because, and I quote “It does not take my immunology into account. My hygienic habits into account; my nutrition; my physiology; my medical history, etc.“
Suggesting that your objection to the use of statistics is built upon the ability of statistics to take into account individual factors - when your primary stated objection is that statistics do not take into account individual factors is very much not a straw man.
You even go on to say:
You suggest I made a straw man “by suggesting that the dispute is over whether statistics can account for individual factors.”
You then go in to say that the reason statistics can’t draw valid inferences is because, and I quote “It does not take my immunology into account. My hygienic habits into account; my nutrition; my physiology; my medical history, etc.“
Suggesting that your objection to the use of statistics is built upon the ability of statistics to take into account individual factors - when your primary stated objection is that statistics do not take into account individual factors is very much not a straw man.
You even go on to say:
Yes, the fallacious reasoning (ecological inferences) from sampling group data doesn't take "my xx into account."
This fallacy is your main contention about the fault in statistical population prediction. This is clearly and indisputably accurately framing the discussion - you’re basically telling me that this is your issue right after effectively saying that it is not.
-->
@Ramshutu
Enjoy the rest of your day, sir. I will indulge this regress no more.
-->
@Athias
My guy, not only have I been saying this all along, but also you engaged me. Who did I strawman?
You’ve been making the broad argument all along - here you are misrepresenting the nature of how samples are chosen and applied - implying it is just an arbitrary uncontrolled unscientific sample that doesn’t account for a multitude of factors, causal processes and groups
No. I have a 50% chance of death. It will either kill me or it wont
Lol no. That there 2 possible options does not mean they are equally likely. This demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of probability.
Categorically false.
No. This is basic probability of events with replacement. This is a basic high school maths example I cited, and if you think this categorically false would lead you to fail any probability segment of a mathematics course. The probability of a random selected ball being blue is total blue/total population.
Then how does this contradict my argument that the sampling is contingent on it's assumptive parameters, rendering it essentially guesswork?
Your “guesswork” conclusion is predicated on the assumptions being untested, unreliable, arbitrary or some combination rendering them easily incorrect. The reality, as shown, is that they can be systematically validated in order to correct for errors and sources of bias; rendering it a more reliable solution - not guess work.
I'm not making a repeated error of assuming risk statistics explicitly apply to me personally. I'm using myself as an exemplar for the individual.
You’re entire point is that the statistical data doesn’t account for your personal circumstances. Which means you’re viewing the risk statistics as if they should incorporate all your personal conditions to be valid. That’s the error you continue to make the conflation of personal risk and aggregated risk.
The issue is you’re not thinking about what the statistic means or how it applies correctly. Akin to complaining that cars are bad because they don’t fly.
Thus, non-predictive. If they do not explicitly apply to individual individually, then the sampling means squat to the prospects of the individual.
That group data doesn’t express your exact personal risk - which remains unknown - does not imply that the data itself “means squat”. That is another non-sequitor; it only “means squat” if the data has no value to or gives no benefit to an individual if they use or follow it.
Composite stats about poker hands will not tell me my probability of winning a specific hand exactly taking into consideration other players cards at the time; does not mean that the data cannot be validly used to instruct or inform actions.
Vaccines lower group risk. You could assume your change in risk is completely unknown, and base your actions and behaviours on arbitrary factors for which you have no factual basis to assess outcome - or you can inform your behaviour based on group decrease in risk - which is at least grounded on the factual basis that whilst not accounting for you personally is based on a collection of people that are similar to you.
In the former, you have no basis to conclude any action one way or another will be valid; in the latter, you have a factual basis that vaccines decrease the risk for your specific group, and the factual basis to conclude the vaccine reduces the risk from a statistically noticeable number of people statistically indistinguishable from you.
As such, whilst not representative of your exact risk - which you have little ability to quantify - it does indeed provide a definitive factual basis of risk reduction that applies to people that share predictive traits upon which you can base decisions. That determination is means substantially more than “squat”
Composite stats about poker hands will not tell me my probability of winning a specific hand exactly taking into consideration other players cards at the time; does not mean that the data cannot be validly used to instruct or inform actions.
Vaccines lower group risk. You could assume your change in risk is completely unknown, and base your actions and behaviours on arbitrary factors for which you have no factual basis to assess outcome - or you can inform your behaviour based on group decrease in risk - which is at least grounded on the factual basis that whilst not accounting for you personally is based on a collection of people that are similar to you.
In the former, you have no basis to conclude any action one way or another will be valid; in the latter, you have a factual basis that vaccines decrease the risk for your specific group, and the factual basis to conclude the vaccine reduces the risk from a statistically noticeable number of people statistically indistinguishable from you.
As such, whilst not representative of your exact risk - which you have little ability to quantify - it does indeed provide a definitive factual basis of risk reduction that applies to people that share predictive traits upon which you can base decisions. That determination is means substantially more than “squat”
No it doesn't. Only the fallacious reasoning based on misinterpretation unwittingly or not of statistics.
Straw man. As shown your interpretation of the ecological fallacy is so broad it applies to any case where composite statistics is used to inform specific actions of an individual as you so eloquently said, group stats are “non predictive”. This renders insurance a fallacious application of statistics; it renders medical decisions that take into account efficacy of medications fallacious. You’re painting the ecological fallacy as invalid whenever statistics are applied to an individual - given that almost every form of stats involve falling down to that - you basically invalidate statistics.
Don’t smoke or drink while pregnant - that is fallacious. Don’t inhale lead vapour as it harms your intelligence - fallacious. Don’t expose yourself to large amounts of radiation, as it increases your risk of cancer, or immediate risk of death. Don’t drink and drive. Wear a seat belt. All fallacious conclusions.
The statement “don’t drink bleach” - expresses the risk based on aggregated stats; and is fallacious by this logic too too. After all, how do we really know your personal risk factors in that scenario. Aggregated stats aren’t predictive of individual outcomes.
Don’t smoke or drink while pregnant - that is fallacious. Don’t inhale lead vapour as it harms your intelligence - fallacious. Don’t expose yourself to large amounts of radiation, as it increases your risk of cancer, or immediate risk of death. Don’t drink and drive. Wear a seat belt. All fallacious conclusions.
The statement “don’t drink bleach” - expresses the risk based on aggregated stats; and is fallacious by this logic too too. After all, how do we really know your personal risk factors in that scenario. Aggregated stats aren’t predictive of individual outcomes.
Statistics once again do not predict outcomes. They capture trends.
Bare assertion - and irrelevant - the above post you largely ignored details how statistics can be used predictively.
Reproducibility of any given event using statistics has not and cannot be sufficiently controlled.
Bare assertion - and irrelevant. The above posts cover the mechanisms and approaches that allow statistics can be predictive despite not having individual events being reproducible.
In fact - an entire explanation using dice in a warehouse demonstrates this, as does the sampling explanation covered above. You have simply dismissed these both with empty assertions, or reiterating the same claim these explanations disprove. This is yet another example of your disjoint, incoherent argument strategy.
In fact - an entire explanation using dice in a warehouse demonstrates this, as does the sampling explanation covered above. You have simply dismissed these both with empty assertions, or reiterating the same claim these explanations disprove. This is yet another example of your disjoint, incoherent argument strategy.
Good to see you've presented a distinction between the "pick" reflecting a 95% probability and the ball itself having a 95% chance of being a particular color.
Straw man - at no point, at any time throughout this entire post, and all my replies have I ever, at any point - confused the two: the reason I haven’t, is that in this the specific example - the latter has no practical meaning.
No, only FALLACIOUS REASONING.
Bare assertion. Note: in all examples I have provided an explanation of why what you’re saying is untrue, or false. Simply all caps ranting at how wrong I am is neither valid, nor rational.
Yes, it does.
Bare assertion. I explained why it does not.
You accuse me of not understanding statistics, yet you make a statement like this? No, that is not the ecological fallacy.
He asserts again.
It’s a textbook ecological fallacy. Assuming trends on the individuals from the west are the same as for the group as a whole.
It’s a textbook ecological fallacy. Assuming trends on the individuals from the west are the same as for the group as a whole.
I do not require an explanation. I know what the fallacy is and how its applied.
He asserts again.
You do not understand the fallacy and are applying it too broadly. I’ve presented a detailed argument explaining what you’re getting wrong, how and why.
You’re responses have simply been asserting that I am wrong - an intellectually bankrupt response.
You do not understand the fallacy and are applying it too broadly. I’ve presented a detailed argument explaining what you’re getting wrong, how and why.
You’re responses have simply been asserting that I am wrong - an intellectually bankrupt response.
Avoid a "big part" of the fallacy? Reasoning can be fallacious in parts?
Evasion. I describe in detail how the fallacy is avoided. What I said either avoids the fallacy, or it does not. Complaining about specific verbiage instead of the argument is a red herring.
No, it doesn't because of the limitations of the sampling.
Assertion
No, it would only be valid if the argument was, "95% of the sample, according to our data, have died from the COVID-19 virus." The ecological fallacy would be imputed if this argument becomes predictive and renders that an individual ascribed to a group dictated by the parameters of the sampling has 95% chance of dying.
Assertion.
I have explained why this is not the case above. Your response has been to assert that I am wrong multiple times, and to deliberately evade my central thesis - addressing literally none of the substance of anything I’ve actually said.
If you’re not willing to offer anything but repeated assertion, no logic, no reasons, no justification - nothing of substance in response to my repeated efforts to consistently provided justification for everything I am saying; it is clearly you are intellectually incapable of having a debate.
I have explained why this is not the case above. Your response has been to assert that I am wrong multiple times, and to deliberately evade my central thesis - addressing literally none of the substance of anything I’ve actually said.
If you’re not willing to offer anything but repeated assertion, no logic, no reasons, no justification - nothing of substance in response to my repeated efforts to consistently provided justification for everything I am saying; it is clearly you are intellectually incapable of having a debate.
Both are ecological inference fallacies.
Bare assertion. A false assertion at that.
One makes an inference about a sub-set of individuals based on aggregate data; the other does not make an inference you as an individual - only the group you are part of. To say you personally have a risk of 95% because you are UFPM would be fallacious; contextualizing the risk as a group risk removes the individual inference.
This is a nuance I have been trying to beat you over the head with for the last 5 posts and which you still seem not to grasp.
But of course, each time I explain in detail, justifying the reasons why, you assert that I am wrong without justification.
One makes an inference about a sub-set of individuals based on aggregate data; the other does not make an inference you as an individual - only the group you are part of. To say you personally have a risk of 95% because you are UFPM would be fallacious; contextualizing the risk as a group risk removes the individual inference.
This is a nuance I have been trying to beat you over the head with for the last 5 posts and which you still seem not to grasp.
But of course, each time I explain in detail, justifying the reasons why, you assert that I am wrong without justification.
8 days later
-->
@Athias
Enjoy the rest of your day, sir. I will indulge this regress no more.
wise.