False precision & Sample

2017-02-08: Colourized

False precision

Preface

February 8 2017 article, edited with additions  on November 13 2023.

February 8 2017

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Cited

'False precision is incurred when exact numbers are used for inexact notions. When straightforward statements are decked out in numbers well beyond the accuracy of measurement, the precision is false and can mislead an audience into supposing that information is more detailed than is really the case.' (109).

Pirie lists an example where Scots were shown to be 63% more generous that the Welsh. (109). The author asks what the measurement of generosity would be? (109).

I would add that even if the number is accurate, the use of a sample is limited. In contrast, a government census could provide access to populations of Scotland and Wales.

Alan Bryman in his text Social Research Methods explains that a sample is a segment of the population that is selected for research. It is a subset of the population. Bryman (2004: 543).

The recent United States Presidential election and the United Kingdom, Brexit votes demonstrate that statistical samples of populations do not always equate with end election results.

Perhaps the concepts of sample is not emphasized enough in the media?

Examples of false precision:

'Ninety percent of atheists are very immoral.'

'Ninety percent of Christians are using God as a crutch.'

Reason tells me both statements are likely untrue and both lack statistical support.

If someone states:

'I estimate that fifty percent of whales are gay, but I am not certain.'

Reason provides me with uncertainty, not having studied whales. But it lacks statistical support. In contrast, it is not at least, claiming precision.

Pirie reasons that academic departments reply on this type of data, using false precision. (110). Note my point on sample size, as one problem. Academically, I would suggest completely avoiding the use of false precision, and if numbers are used to humbly admit that reasoned deductions and estimations are being used.

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

---

November 13 2023

Logically fallacious: Fake Precision

Cited 

'(also known as: over-precision, false precision, misplaced precision, spurious accuracy)

Description: Using implausibly precise statistics to give the appearance of truth and certainty, or using a negligible difference in data to draw incorrect inferences.' 

Cited 

'Tour Guide: This fossil right here is 120,000,003 years old. 

Guest: How do you know that? 

Tour Guide: Because when I started working here three years ago, the experts did some radiometric dating and told me that it was 120,000,000 years old. 

Explanation: Although more of a comedy skit than anything else, this demonstrates the fallacious reasoning by the tour guide in her assumption that the dates given to her were precise to the year.' 

Cited

'Tip: Don’t confuse fake precision with real performance.'

Huff, D. (1993) How to Lie with Statistics (Reissue edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Example

I took a walk in the back 40 forty (40 acers of underdeveloped land).

Merriam-Webster

Cited 

'a remote and uncultivated or undeveloped piece of land of indefinite size (as on a farm)' 

“Back forty.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/back%20forty. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.

It would be false precision and fallacious to assume that the underdeveloped land I walked in was actually 40 acres. In fact, the land I had in mind, from my past, was actually approximately five acres.

Fallacy files: Overprecision 

Cited

'Overprecision 

Alias:

Fake Precision1 

False Precision2 

Misplaced Precision3 

Spurious Accuracy4'

Cited

'Exposition: This fallacy involves treating imprecise information as more precise than it is. When imprecise claims contained in the premisses must be taken as precise in order to support the conclusion, the argument commits the fallacy of overprecision.'

Reasonable not absolute certainty required

Kelly Burchert: Facebook, today

New York Daily News February 2

'Interesting point, counter-point on religion'

My friend Dr. Jennifer Lloyd (UBC) sent this to me on Facebook.

My comments

In humanity, we all have faith because none of us have 100% certainty. Absolute certainty would require one to be infinite.

I can have reasonable certainty that I exist, but not absolute 100% certainty. I will admit I had an adviser and professor at Trinity Western University that disagreed with my view. He stated that the gospel was 100% absolutely certain. But I held to and hold to, that only God has absolute certainty. I have reasonable certainty in regard to the gospel as being true.

During my MPhil/PhD theses work, when I had to study Kant and Wittgenstein, I developed partly through the Cambridge Philosophy Dictionary, an understanding that there is humanly, no absolute, 100% certainty.

As well, reading Kant I did reasonably consider Kant's views on the noumenon, plural noumena realm. I can grant that the non-empirical spiritual realm is speculative and that God could not be known in a personal context by speculation alone. But, contrary to Kant, I do reason that both revelation leading to theology and philosophy of religion can contain reasonable certainty.

Reasonable certainty is that internally and externally premises and conclusion (s) are consistent and not disproved by counter propositions and conclusions.

In regards to the gospel, it is internally consistent as the Scripture is consistent. There is significant and sufficient manuscript evidence extant and the writings of Church Fathers, combined with effective scholarship.

Externally, in my view, no other worldview represented by premises and conclusion (s) is superior or disproves the gospel, the historical atonement and resurrection of Christ and related. Philosophy of religion and philosophical speculation could reasonably lead to knowledge in regard to the existence of God. As a matter of admittance, I did study atheistic, agnostic and critical perspectives for my British studies, as well as various Christian views.

Agreed, there is scientific empirical fact, such as the law of gravity. I can have reasonable faith in the law of gravity. There is also philosophical science, like transitional forms in Darwinian evolution, which are not established empirical fact within current scientific philosophy. My Manchester philosophy of religion professor granted that transitional forms is scientific theory only. Although he held to it as true.

A belief in one trinitarian God over 2999 other gods, is if properly and reasonably held, based primarily on Biblical revelation leading to theology and secondarily, philosophy of religion and philosophical speculation. I prefer the term 'first cause' over 'the prime mover', but I get the point from the video. Clarification: The trinity cannot be reasonable known other than via revelation. However, through reason and philosophy, one could for example, deduce that the infinite, eternal God required distinctions of personality within nature in order to be a personal being. Granted, within the eternal it would be timeless and all would be known within relationship.

Philosophical speculation on its own may reasonably lead someone to theism, but it will not lead someone to the revealed gospel (Romans, Hebrews, John, 1 John).

Mr. Gervais reasonably, does have faith in regard to science and philosophy.

Even if we grant that virtually, without infinite knowledge and certainty, he needs little faith to believe in the empirical, he needs faith to hold to non-empirical science and scientific philosophy.

Mr. Gervais also has faith, not fact that there is no evidence or knowledge of God, because he appears to assume that only empirical knowledge will suffice. This is very problematic as by definition, the immaterial, spiritual God will not be empirically provable. This is a common mistake of some agnostics, atheists and critics. They dismiss the religious history of revealed Scripture as a type of knowledge. They may dismiss philosophical speculation for theism and accept philosophical speculation against theism.

Mr. Gervais risks scientism, which humanist, British philosopher, Simon Blackburn describes in his Oxford Philosophy Dictionary.

From Oxford Scientism: '1 a: a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).'

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Woo

Mark Morrey: Facebook, today

Are human beings a mechanical tool? (PhD Edit)

From

Theodicy and Practical Theology, PhD, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010

G.C. Berkouwer reasons that God wants a free man, not a mechanical tool or creature that can be maneuvered as the Almighty sees fit. Berkouwer (1962: 333).

I reason human freedom always operates within the framework of God’s sovereignty and providence.

Plantinga postulates since a world containing significantly free creatures where good outweighs evil is more valuable than a world with automatons or robots. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30).

Also noted from my PhD:

'People were not robotically inspired to write Scripture.'

In other words I do not hold to dictation theory, but an inspiration theory through the Holy Spirit. For example, the Apostle Paul was a Hebrew Bible scholar and was inspired within that framework,

2 Peter 1:20-21

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

February 2, 2017

In my view, human nature is not neutral. It is fallen (Genesis 3, Romans, Hebrews). I therefore do not hold to libertarian free will. For the most part, one cannot choose his/her own nature and therefore, any significantly freely made thoughts, acts and actions come from that nature.

If thoughts, acts and actions are forced or coerced, a secondary entity is not significantly morally responsible. If something is forced or coerced, it could be considered as mechanical from the secondary entity. I do reason that God could force or coerce human beings and all creatures, but also reason human beings and creatures would not be significantly responsible for thoughts, acts and actions.

When I state, for the most part, I would reason that one could stop smoking, a slight change in nature, I suppose, but biblically outside of the triune God, the atoning work of Jesus Christ and the resurrection, one cannot stop sinning in the body. The essential ontological nature is set.

At least in general terms, I do not see human beings or angelic beings (demonic included) as mechanical tools because I reason limited free will exists, which has humanity and angelic beings as secondary causes, embrace the willfully made choices of God, the first cause. This is true whether God, directly wills something or indirectly allows something.

Berkouwer 2014

BERKOUWER, G.C. (1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

There are tears of joy and there are tears of sadness: Both can impair vision

Add caption

Professor Jurgen Schonwetter, Columbia Bible College, retired, stated:

(Paraphrased): 'There are tears of joy and there are tears of sadness. Both can impair vision.'

Profound on perspective.

Profound on objectivity.

I have Christian and non-Christian friends of both sides of the political spectrum. I am a moderate conservative. I am not claiming a wishy-washy neutrality. Obviously, from reading my website it can be understood that I have some definitive and definite views.

My thoughts are that as biblical Christians:

The gospel is of far greater importance than politics. Notice the early New Testament Church was not very political, but was intensely gospel focused on the new heaven and new earth. Rome was not to be overthrown by revolution, but creation ultimately restored.

Loving those in Christ (Gospel of John, I John) takes priority over political disagreements in the Church.

Christians are to love their neighbour as they love self (Matthew 22, Mark 12). That includes those of other views, even if those views are in error.

Objectivity should take priority in politics as opposed to one almost always or always, siding with the left, right or centre, because that is what one usually does.

I.E. (That is) Because one was born on the 'green team' or grew into the 'green team' should not mean by default that one almost always, or always, supports the 'green team'. In prayer, seeking the objective truth, the 'purple team' might make more sense on some points, than, quite frankly, what a hasty evaluation from 'green team' members might conclude.

In prayer we should ask the Lord to avoid spiritual and political blindness.

Blackburn:

'Objectivism (ethics) Any view upholding the objective status of ethical commitment, in opposition to error theories, scepticism, and relativism. The central problem is finding the source of the required objectivity. (267).

Cambridge explains:

'Objectivism may be naturalist or non-naturalist. The naturalist objectivist believes that values, duties, or whatever are natural phenomena detectable by introspection, perception, or scientific inference. (244). This is connected to empiricism and empirical facts. (244). 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

SPRIGGE, T.L.S (1996) 'Ethical Objectivism', The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.