05 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by kingdanwaOk, this is a plausible hypothesis, and I will revise my claim accordingly, as the aspect of it that you are challenging is rather tangential to the essence of my dispute with your original hypothesis, which itself is rather tangential to your proposal.
What you call the "socialogical habit" of throwing butts on the ground in the abscence of an ashtray becomes the norm in the presence of ashtrays.
Throwing butts on the ground is done out of sociological habit - that's just the way butts have always been disposed of. It remains true that one who litters butts is not more likely to litter in general. You may see smokers drop butts on the gound next to ashtrays everyday, but I doubt you see those same people regularly throw their fry boxes on the ground outside of McDonald's.
Thus, the forfeiture of any deposit imposed on butts should be commensurate only with the damage that the littering of the butt has done, and not with any presumed extra littering of the smoker.
05 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesQuite the contrary! At a baseball game, in the context of throwing penut shells on the ground, ordinary people who would not normally litter leave much of their personal debris (beer bottles, nacho trays, etc.) on the ground at their feet. When one is okay leaving some trash, he/she is more likely to leave more. When it seems okay to drop penuts, it seems okay to discard cups.
I wouldn't conclude that somebody discarding peanut shells on the ground is more likely to discard a beer bottle on the ground. This habitual norm does not justify the littering
If I ALWAYS drop cigarette butts, I'm more likely to drop other items I'm done with.
05 May 06
4 edits
Originally posted by kingdanwaWho's proving whose point here? Just as it is empirically normal to see smokers drop butts anywhere, it is empirically normal to see baseball fans discard concessions under their seats. We agree on this.
Quite the contrary! At a baseball game, in the context of throwing penut shells on the ground, ordinary people who would not normally litter leave much of their personal debris (beer bottles, nacho trays, etc.) on the ground at their feet. When one is okay leaving some trash, he/she is more likely to leave more. When it seems okay to drop penuts, it see ...[text shortened]... cups.
If I ALWAYS drop cigarette butts, I'm more likely to drop other items I'm done with.
However, you don't conclude that those baseball fans who stadium litter are more likely to litter in general. You haven't proposed a 32-oz stadium soda cup deposit as a solution to the general litter problem. If your inference that butt litterers are more likely to litter in general is correct, you should also conclude that stadium litterers are more likely to litter in general. If you don't, then you're denying the soundness of your own inference between butt littering and general littering.
The correlation you observe between peanut littering at a stadium and general stadium littering exists but it is a trivial one. It does not suggest that peanut littering is correlated with general littering.
Further, I'm not sure that it's accurate to characterize stadium littering as littering. Everybody knows that there are staff specifically employed to clean up after the game, and that when the fans return the next week, it will be clean, which is in contrast to the essential problem of litter, which is that it is a more permanent eyesore with no system in place to rectify it. Leaving a cup under your seat at the game is effectively no different that putting it in the trash can - there is a system to deal with both, in contrast to general litter in which a system only exists to deal with items disposed in proper receptacles. In essence, the entire stadium serves as a trash can that gets systematically emptied every night, funded by a portion of the price of admission, but in general we don't want our entire city to serve as a trash can because the corresponding clean-up is neither economically nor logistically feasible.
I maintain that there is likely no correlation between butt littering and general littering to any degree greater than there is one between stadium littering and general littering.
05 May 06
Everyone knows that “correlation doesn’t prove cause.” Just because most people who have lung cancer smoked, doesn’t mean the cigarettes caused the cancer. Similarly, very few non-smokers develop lung cancer. These are just correlations, not causes.
But let’s consider another correlation. A counting game, if you will. Grab you notebook, a pencil, a tape measure, and go for a little stroll. The object of the game is to count debris, and the kinds of debris in the vicinity. Let’s call the “vicinity” somewhere between 2-10 feet (or whatever you consider the average distance of a flicked butt). When you find a cigarette butt, see if there is any other non-butt debris in the vicinity. When you find any non-butt debris, see if there are any butts in the vicinity.
I believe you will find that non-butt debris is overwhelmingly near butt debris, while the opposite is not the case. Sure, butts are everywhere. But try to find litter that isn’t associated with cigarette butts. The great majority of non-butt litter is always associated with butts.
Obviously, we don’t know who littered the non-butts. Perhaps it wasn’t the smoker. Maybe the people standing around him littered. In either case, “debris begets debris.” Either the person who normally litters littered a little more, or others were influenced to litter by the butt dropper. “Debris begets debris.”
05 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by kingdanwaI believe that you will find that non-butt debris is overwhelmingly located near streets. Sure, streets are everywhere. But try to find litter that isn't associated with streets. The great majority of non-butt litter is always associated with streets.
I believe you will find that non-butt debris is overwhelmingly near butt debris, while the opposite is not the case. Sure, butts are everywhere. But try to find litter that isn’t associated with cigarette butts. The great majority of non-butt litter is always associated with butts.
Are we to conclude based on this observation that streets beget debris?
Might it be that case that streets beget both butt and non-butt debris, rather than that debris begets debris?
05 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFair enough. Let’s limit our search to your parameters. I’m confident that the search results will not vary.
I believe that you will find that non-butt debris is overwhelmingly located near streets. Sure, streets are everywhere. But try to find litter that isn't associated with streets. The great majority of non-butt litter is always associated with streets.
Are we to conclude based on this observation that streets beget debris?
Might it be that case that streets beget both butt and non-butt debris, rather than that debris begets debris?
05 May 06
Originally posted by kingdanwaBut I'm claiming that even if we observe the results that you predict - that general litter will rarely be found alone but usually near butts - we do not have evidence to conclude either of
Fair enough. Let’s limit our search to your parameters. I’m confident that the search results will not vary.
1) The butts begat the other litter, or
2) Those who littered the butts are more likely to have left the other litter.
(1) is refuted by the streets beget litter observation.
And I don't see any connection between the predicted results and (2), since the butts can be accounted for by a sociological norm which does not account for the other debris. That is, if it is true that the smoker drops his butt in deference to the traditionally accepted standard of butt disposal, then it is a reasonable hypothesis that he will follow other traditional standards of waste disposal and take his other refuse to a trash can.
05 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI suppose I'm missing your point. Whether we are by a street, in a park, or in an alley, there is always a connection between general debris and butts. Debris is rarely found in the absence of butts. While there may be may theories as to how the two types of trash independantly arrived on the ground next to each other, the general principle remains: litter is rarely found in the absence of butts, and butts are readily found in the absence of litter. Where there is litter, there are butts.
But I'm claiming that even if we observe the results that you predict - that general litter will rarely be found alone but usually near butts - we do not have evidence to conclude either of
1) The butts begat the other litter, or
2) Those who littered the butts are more likely to have left the other litter.
(1) is refuted by the streets beget li ...[text shortened]... follow other traditional standards of waste disposal and take his other refuse to a trash can.
05 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat evidence do you have to claim that there's no correlation?
But I'm claiming that even if we observe the results that you predict - that general litter will rarely be found alone but usually near butts - we do not have evidence to conclude either of
1) The butts begat the other litter, or
2) Those who littered the butts are more likely to have left the other litter.
(1) is refuted by the streets beget li ...[text shortened]... follow other traditional standards of waste disposal and take his other refuse to a trash can.
It seems common sense to believe that someone who already throws butts on the floor would also have a higher tendency to litter. After all, by definition, they already litter so we are comparing a population where all individuals already litter with a population that includes people who do not litter.
If common sense is right or wrong is another thing, but wouldn't it put the burden of evidence on you?
05 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by kingdanwaWe agree on this point. My point is that it does not indicate that if the butts were to cease due to an artificial mechanism like a deposit, the litter would be likely to disappear as a result. It doesn't establish a butts beget litter relationship.
I suppose I'm missing your point. Whether we are by a street, in a park, or in an alley, there is always a connection between general debris and butts. Debris is rarely found in the absence of butts. While there may be may theories as to how the two types of trash independantly arrived on the ground next to each other, the general principle remains: lit ...[text shortened]... and butts are readily found in the absence of litter. Where there is litter, there are butts.
Suppose it is true that fry boxes are almost always found littered near McDonald's drink cups and rarely alone. Under your hypothesis, we would have to analogously conclude that if McDonald's stopped serving drinks in disposable cups but instead served drinks in 24-carat gold cups that nobody would throw away, we'd expect to see significantly fewer fry boxes littered, since fry boxes are only rarely found littered in the absence of cups. I'm claiming that this is an unsound inference, as is the analogous inference that eliminating butts will decrease the amount of general litter.
05 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI have already given an explanation. In the mind of a smoker, and even objectively, dropping a butt is the traditionally accepted disposal method, just as it is traditionally accepted to leave your drink under your seat at the baseball game. If you don't conclude that a baseball fan is more likely to litter in general, you ought not conclude that a smoker is more likely to litter in general.
What evidence do you have to claim that there's no correlation?
It seems common sense to believe that someone who already throws butts on the floor would also have a higher tendency to litter. After all, by definition, they already litter so we are comparing a population where all individuals already litter with a population that includes people who do no ...[text shortened]... n sense is right or wrong is another thing, but wouldn't it put the burden of evidence on you?
The burden of proof always lies with he who wishes to convince. I'm not attempting to convince that smokers aren't more likely to litter in general. I'm attempting to convince that the inference that they are is unsound based on the presented facts.
05 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOk, I agree then. I thought you were saying that there was no correlation.
We agree on this point. My point is that it does not indicate that if the butts were to cease due to an artificial mechanism like a deposit, the litter would be likely to disappear as a result. It doesn't establish a butts beget litter relationship.
Suppose it is true that fry boxes are almost always found littered near McDonald's drink cups ar ...[text shortened]... the analogous inference that eliminating butts will decrease the amount of general litter.
That there is correlation now does not mean that it will be maintained after there are structural changes. However (and this is where there might be disagreement), it also seems "logical" to claim that a cleaner street can have psychological effects on the decision of littering for some people.
05 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn my analogy, there is no immediate connection between the content of the debris and the butts. My focus is on the habit of littering. The fact that there is often no connection between the items littered is a strength of my theory. No matter what the person is done with, he is more likely to discard it as he would a butt because that's what he has been conditioned to do.
We agree on this point. My point is that it does not indicate that if the butts were to cease due to an artificial mechanism like a deposit, the litter would be likely to disappear as a result. It doesn't establish a butts beget litter relationship.
Suppose it is true that fry boxes are almost always found littered near McDonald's drink cups an ...[text shortened]... the analogous inference that eliminating butts will decrease the amount of general litter.