Spirituality
18 Sep 05
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo in a real situation we would need to know all the percentages of people in all the occupations to run them?
Their proofs only speak to occupations (2) and (8), those whose proportions of molesters match the population's.
They conclude that if you were ignorant about all but (2), you could be certain that it wasn't an outlier like (4).
19 Sep 05
3 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanNo! The point of the proof is that even without that knowledge, you know that an occupation with an identical proportion of molesters to the population will not have a higher proportion than all others.
So in a real situation we would need to know all the percentages of people in all the occupations to run them?
Let me try a different way. If you want to construct a counterexample to the proof, you need to fill in numbers for (1) through (10) such that they sum to 20, one occupation has 2 and one has less than 2, and no occupation has more than 2. That is, you must make some occupation look like the original (4), while having only a count of 2.
Your inability to construct such a list is equivalent to what the proof says.
19 Sep 05
5 edits
I think I may have discovered the source of the confusion.
LH's claims was stated: As to the occupation bit, the fact that the % of priest-molesters is the same as that of the general population is sufficient to prove that priests do not have a higher % of molesters than any other occupation.
using "any" in the mathematician's "I get to pick" sense. That is, for Starrman's example, the mathematician gets to pick (4) as the counterexample fulfilling the "do not have a higher % than" clause. The antagonist does not get to cite occupation (5); that's not what "any" means here, although that may be the most straightforward reading of it to a non-mathematician.
The fact that it lies in the negated clause is the clue to its proper interpretation.
To make LH's claim completely unambiguous would require that it be rendered using strict existential qualifiers and negations, which would make it even less accessible, although more precise.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes, I suspect you have hit the nail on the head.
I think I may have discovered the source of the confusion.
LH's claims was stated: [b]As to the occupation bit, the fact that the % of priest-molesters is the same as that of the general population is sufficient to prove that priests do not have a higher % of molesters than any other occupation.
using "any" in the mathematician' ...[text shortened]... ntial qualifiers and negations, which would make it even less accessible, although more precise.[/b]
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI thought of going back and amending it to read "all other occupations", but most readers seem to have got that bit anyway.
I think I may have discovered the source of the confusion.
LH's claims was stated: [b]As to the occupation bit, the fact that the % of priest-molesters is the same as that of the general population is sufficient to prove that priests do not have a higher % of molesters than any other occupation.
using "any" in the mathematician' ...[text shortened]... ntial qualifiers and negations, which would make it even less accessible, although more precise.[/b]
Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity, though.
Cheers,
LH
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think I get the logic, though not the math (Statistics was never a favourite subject of mine).
The four suggested categories are similar in several regards, such as their level of:
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 o ...[text shortened]... orthogonal that the original four, using the term in the sense of principal component analysis.
Essentially, it seems one would choose a set of orthogonal attributes for occupations in general, say:
- Authority
- Visibility
- Pay
- Access to minors
and allocate a score (say, in the interval [-1,1]) to each profession. So, a carpenter might score (-0.1,0,0.1,0.3) while the President of the United States might score (1,1,0.7,0). The idea would be that each occupation would be a vector in n-space where n is the number of attributes or axes.
For a general population, the characteristic vector (the sum of individual vectors weighted by proportion of population) should (I think) be (0,0,0,0). If the characteristic vector for molesters were, say (0.5,-0.3,0,0.7) then you would suspect that molesters are not uniformly distributed across professions and that certain professions attract or encourage molesters. Professions whose vectors are close to that of the sub-population would tend to be more "high risk".
Correct so far?
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNone what so ever, which is why I don't seek employment in a role where I'm expected to give a moral lead.
What right do you have to thrust "liberal morality" down people's throats ?
As for this message bored then its function is to give an opportunity for the opinionated to opine, and I intend to opine with gusto!
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, that's the idea. If the data works out correctly, the conclusion would be that those attributes attract the molesters, and not the occupations themselves. That is, if a new occupation were added that had a similar vector, you would be confident that it would also be observed to have a high number of molesters.
I think I get the logic, though not the math (Statistics was never a favourite subject of mine).
Essentially, it seems one would choose a set of orthogonal attributes for occupations in general, say:
- Authority
- Visibility
- Pay
- Access to minors
and allocate a score (say, in the interval [-1,1]) to each profession. So, a ...[text shortened]... are close to that of the sub-population would tend to be more "high risk".
Correct so far?
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou are Miss de Point and I claim my £5.00!
I think I get the logic, though not the math (Statistics was never a favourite subject of mine).
Essentially, it seems one would choose a set of orthogonal attributes for occupations in general, say:
- Authority
- Visibility
- Pay
- Access to minors
and allocate a score (say, in the interval [-1,1]) to each profession. So, a ...[text shortened]... are close to that of the sub-population would tend to be more "high risk".
Correct so far?
Carpenters do not set themselves up as sources of moral aurthority whereas priests and politicians do. If they are unable to meet or even aspire to their own moral standards they should either ease off from preaching or give up their job to find anither that suits them better.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhome"None what so ever, ..... "
None what so ever, which is why I don't seek employment in a role where I'm expected to give a moral lead.
As for this message bored then its function is to give an opportunity for the opinionated to opine, and I intend to opine with gusto!
You must be deaf, dumb and blind for stating this.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesGiven that about 40% of minor abuse cases occur either with close family members or complete strangers (both cases where, one would assume, profession does not play a significant role), isn't this likely to make any such characteristic set of attributes "weak"; i.e. close to 0?
Yes, that's the idea. If the data works out correctly, the conclusion would be that those attributes attract the molesters, and not the occupations themselves. That is, if a new occupation were added that had a similar vector, you would be confident that it would also be observed to have a high number of molesters.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by kirksey957The verse is found in 2nd Timothy 2:15. The word "rightly dividing" is the greek word orthotamounta, not certain of the spelling.
What does that expression mean, "rightly dividing God's word"? When I have heard it, it has come up in the context where I often thought the person was saying "what I believe is right and what you believe is wrong." Maybe you could clarify it for me.
But the meaning is "right cutting". Since the originals were written as such:
FORGODSOLOVEDTHEWORLDTHATHEGAVEHIS.....ETC.,in Greek , of course, scribes or students of the scriptures were to "rightly cut" or seperate the words.
Also the student was to add punctuation where needed.Thus, a scribe with a bias could say...
"I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
or
"I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise."
In the first rendering, he seems to say this very day you will be...
but this would contrdict other scripture, such as Jesus was in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. So how could he say today you will...?
The second rendering would be the correct one. He said today, you will(future tense) be with me ...
People that believe that when you die you are instantly in heaven with Jesus use the first, in error.
1Thes 4:13-18
13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep(died), lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep(have died) in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep(dead).
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.
(NKJ)
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterSo rightly dividing the Word means interpreting it correctly, paying due attention to punctuation.
The verse is found in 2nd Timothy 2:15. The word "rightly dividing" is the greek word orthotamounta, not certain of the spelling.
But the meaning is "right cutting". etc