Spirituality
18 Sep 05
19 Sep 05
I'm sorry to come across as the dunce here, but could somebody translate those workings into non-mathematical language? I get half way through and I have to start again.
As it stands, I can't seem to understand why it is not possible for there to be more molesters in the priest group and less in the (for example) actors group. If the two groups are the same in total number, a 2% average could be maintained. Am I missing something?
(I expect to shortly feel even more unintelligent...)
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat's the first step in either proof that you don't follow from the previous?
I'm sorry to come across as the dunce here, but could somebody translate those workings into non-mathematical language? I get half way through and I have to start again.
As it stands, I can't seem to understand why it is not possible for there to be more molesters in the priest group and less in the (for example) actors group. If the two groups are t ...[text shortened]... be maintained. Am I missing something?
(I expect to shortly feel even more unintelligent...)
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by Starrmanha, you and me both. I get the main idea, that if 2% is the number of molesters in the general population, that 2% could be distributed over any occupation, therefore 2% of any given occupation may be molesters. None of that answers my initial question, though....
(I expect to shortly feel even more unintelligent...)
19 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by David CWhat question? Why molesters seek to be priests?
Your proof by verbosity notwithstanding, why not answer the question?
That question only makes sense if the proportion of priests that are molesters were significantly higher than that of the general population. Since that is not the case, your question is meaningless.
My answer would simply be - they are there by [random] chance.
EDIT: It's bad form to call something "proof by verbosity" when you don't understand it. telerion's version of the proof is simpler - if you like I make the same offer to you that Scribs made to Starrman.
19 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOf course it's not a valid deduction. But it is [statistically?] as good an explanation as any other.
This of course is not a valid deduction in the same way that your proof is one. It is speculation. There are mathematically consistent alternative explanations.
19 Sep 05
7 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerOnly in the absence of information that certain occupations attract molesters. If you assume this, then you are assuming what you are trying to demonstrate, namely that there's nothing about the priesthood that appeals to molesters to a greater degree than other occupations.
No. But it is statistically as good an explanation as any other.
Suppose we had a population of 200 people, 4 molesters.
One was a teacher. One was a priest. One was a pediatrician. One was a little league coach.
Would you make the same statistical argument, that the molesters are randomly distributed across occupations? Or would you entertain the hypothesis that the trusted access to children that these occupations enjoy might attract molesters more than, say, construction work.
Dr. S
P.S. Actually, we need more people and more molesters, and additional orthogonally arranged occupations to make my example work in the context of the proof.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesP.S. Actually, we need more people and more molesters, and additional orthogonally arranged occupations to make my example work in the context of the proof.
Only in the absence of information that certain occupations attract molesters. If you assume this, then you are assuming what you are trying to demonstrate, namely that there's nothing about the priesthood that appeals to molesters to a greater degree than other occupations.
Suppose we had a population of 200 people, 4 molesters.
One was a teac ...[text shortened]... ditional orthogonally arranged occupations to make my example work in the context of the proof.
Not sure what "orthogonal arrangement" is - any help would be greatly appreciated.
But you're right - we would need more people and molesters (hypothetically speaking, of course). In this case, a 90% confidence interval for this population would yield values between 0.4% and 3.6% for the proportion of molesters in the population - making the actual 2% value virtually meaningless.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe four suggested categories are similar in several regards, such as their level of:
Not sure what "orthogonal arrangement" is - any help would be greatly appreciated.
Authority
Trust
Respect
Expertise
Access to children
Now, take a guy who works at McDonald's, an attorney, a forest ranger and an auto mechanic. Can you construct a similar set of axes on which these all score high? If you can't then I'd call this set of occupations more orthogonal that the original four, using the term in the sense of principal component analysis.
19 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOnce the definitions finish and the maths begins...
What's the first step in either proof that you don't follow from the previous?
How about I set up a theoretical siutaion and you explain to me why mine isn't going to work?
We have a population of 1000
In this population we have 10 occupations with equal numbers of persons (100).
In the occupations we have the following number of molesters:
1) 1
2) 2
3) 3
4) 8
5) 0
6) 1
7) 1
8) 2
9) 1
10) 1
So we have 20 molesters in a population of 1000, which is an average of 2% molester per occupation. But we can plainly see that occupation 4 has several more molesters than the others. How does this compare to the proof that was presented by either Telerion or LH?
19 Sep 05
6 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanTheir proofs only speak to occupations (2) and (8), those whose proportions of molesters match the population's.
Once the definitions finish and the maths begins...
How about I set up a theoretical siutaion and you explain to me why mine isn't going to work?
We have a population of 1000
In this population we have 10 occupations with equal numbers of persons (100).
In the occupations we have the following number of molesters:
1) 1
2) 2
3) 3
4) 8
5) 0
6 ...[text shortened]... han the others. How does this compare to the proof that was presented by either Telerion or LH?
They conclude that if you were ignorant about all but (2), you could be certain that it wasn't an outlier like (4).