The NFL Fumbles the Ball

[laughing dog]

You appear to misunderstand the argument. That disparity is consistent with the theory of a racist criminal justice system: it literally supports that theory.

The disparity is just as consistent with the theory of a non-racist criminal justice system. Thus, the fact that there are disparities has zero impact upon the probability that the justice system is racist....

Whether the disparity is "just as consistent" is your unsupportable assertion, not a question of fact.

Imagine that you show me a 4 of diamonds in a card deck. Then, I say the card you just showed me is a 4 of diamonds. The fact that was correct is "consist with" the theory that I have ESP. IS that support for and evidence for the theory that I have ESP? No, because what we already know about the world says that I would be correct, even without ESP because I saw the card.

Your analogy is faulty. Using observations to construct an explanation and using the observations as proof is bootstrapping. But you have not shown any evidence that is the case.

No, it isn't even evidence in favor of that theory, not only to me. but to all rational people capable of evidence based reasoning and who grasp the principles of scientific thinking.

That is only true if you can show it is an example of bootstrapping. Since you haven't, all rational people capable of evidence based reasoning and who grasp the principles of scientific thinking know your claim is unproven at this juncture.

The disparity is an irrelevant fact in relation to whether their is anti-black racism in the system, because it is predicted to be true whether or not any such racism exists.

All rational people capable of evidence based reasoning and who grasp the principles of scientific thinking understand that the size of the disparity would be affected by the factors which makes your claim rather pointless.

 

[doubtingt]

The disparity is just as consistent with the theory of a non-racist criminal justice system. Thus, the fact that there are disparities has zero impact upon the probability that the justice system is racist....

Whether the disparity is "just as consistent" is your unsupportable assertion, not a question of fact.

No, it is a matter of whether the both the competing theories make the prediction of disparity, given everything else that is known. They do. It is your assumption that only the racism theory makes this prediction that not only unsupportable assertion, but it directly falsified by fact and logic.
The burden of proof is 100% on you to show that the racism theory is more consistent with the observation of a disparity. Without this, the disparity provides no support or evidence for your theory.

Imagine that you show me a 4 of diamonds in a card deck. Then, I say the card you just showed me is a 4 of diamonds. The fact that was correct is "consist with" the theory that I have ESP. IS that support for and evidence for the theory that I have ESP? No, because what we already know about the world says that I would be correct, even without ESP because I saw the card.

Your analogy is faulty. Using observations to construct an explanation and using the observations as proof is bootstrapping. But you have not shown any evidence that is the case.

The analogy is perfect. The fact that we know I saw the card corresponds to the fact that blacks engage in more frequent corporal punishment. (If you want to deny that established empirical fact, then nothing you've said has any relevance to anything I said). The fact that I say "the card is a 4 of diamonds" corresponds to the observation of racial disparities in prosecution for excessive child "discipline". The theory that I have ESP corresponds to the theory that the justice system is racist.
In both cases, the value of the observation (that I said the card was a 4 of diamond, or that the racial disparity) has zero evidential value for the theory, because the other already known facts predict what was observed, even in a world where the theory is false.

No, it isn't even evidence in favor of that theory, not only to me. but to all rational people capable of evidence based reasoning and who grasp the principles of scientific thinking.

That is only true if you can show it is an example of bootstrapping. Since you haven't, all rational people capable of evidence based reasoning and who grasp the principles of scientific thinking know your claim is unproven at this juncture.

Wrong. The objective evidential value that an observation provides for the theory is independent of whether the theory is already presumed to be true.
Again, 100% of the burden is upon you. Claiming that observation X is evidence for theory A, inherently presumes that theory A is unique in its ability to predict X, and that given everything else know about the world that is related to X, we would not expect X to occur if theory A was false.
You have and cannot support this inherent presumption, thus your claim of evidence is unscientific.

The disparity is an irrelevant fact in relation to whether their is anti-black racism in the system, because it is predicted to be true whether or not any such racism exists.

All rational people capable of evidence based reasoning and who grasp the principles of scientific thinking understand that the size of the disparity would be affected by the factors which makes your claim rather pointless.

Observations about the specific size of the disparity are not the same as the mere existence of a non-zero disparity. IF you want to show that the disparity is too large to be predicted by any theory but racism by the officers and courts prosecuting crimes, then that is great. You will need to show evidence that the greater actual criminal behavior of blacks is only of size X, while the disparity is size Y. I have never seen you present any such argument. IT is always just of the form, 'look there is a disparity, that is racism'.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is a matter of whether the both the competing theories make the prediction of disparity, given everything else that is known. They do. It is your assumption that only the racism theory makes this prediction that not only unsupportable assertion, but it directly falsified by fact and logic.
The burden of proof is 100% on you to show that the racism theory is more consistent with the observation of a disparity. Without this, the disparity provides no support or evidence for your theory.

Wrong. It is not a matter whether the competing theories make the prediction of disparity, given everything else is known. The size of the disparity that each competing theory predicts is relevant as well.

The analogy is perfect....

Wrong again. Your example is one of bootstrapping. However the bootstrapping is not a fact in evidence but your assumption.

Wrong. The objective evidential value that an observation provides for the theory is independent of whether the theory is already presumed to be true.
Again, 100% of the burden is upon you. Claiming that observation X is evidence for theory A, inherently presumes that theory A is unique in its ability to predict X, and that given everything else know about the world that is related to X, we would not expect X to occur if theory A was false.

It is not true that claiming X is evidence for theory A inherently presumes theory A is unique in its ability to predict X. It is true that claiming X proves theory A is true inherently presumes theory A is unique in its ability to predict X.

You have and cannot support this inherent presumption, thus your claim of evidence is unscientific.

I did not make such a presumption because it is false. Your conclusion is based on a deeply flawed understanding of reason and the scientific method.

Observations about the specific size of the disparity are not the same as the mere existence of a non-zero disparity. IF you want to show that the disparity is too large to be predicted by any theory but racism by the officers and courts prosecuting crimes, then that is great. You will need to show evidence that the greater actual criminal behavior of blacks is only of size X, while the disparity is size Y.

I am not making an argument specifically about racism. I am showing your claims here about the arguments are misguided/false.

I have never seen you present any such argument. IT is always just of the form, 'look there is a disparity, that is racism'.

You have seen neither from me, so you half right.

 

[doubtingt]

Wrong. It is not a matter whether the competing theories make the prediction of disparity, given everything else is known. The size of the disparity that each competing theory predicts is relevant as well.

If the racism theory is so poorly specified (as all your theories are) as to only predict a mere non-zero disparity, then whether or not a theory that presumes the exact opposite (no racism in criminal justice) can predict the same non-zero disparity (which it does) is a direct determinant of whether the observed event provides any evidence for the racism theory. The issue of whether competing theories better predict the precise size of the disparity is a separate issue that has no relevance, since no racism theory presented on these boards has or is capable of making a specific prediction about the size of the disparity.

The analogy is perfect....

Wrong again. Your example is one of bootstrapping. However the bootstrapping is not a fact in evidence but your assumption.

Your irrelevant misuse of science terms whose meaning you don't understand, doesn't constitute an argument. Every component of the analogy maps onto the target scenario under consideration, as I described, and you cannot present any actual critique of it, so like most scientifically illiterate pseudo-intellectuals you just toss out sciencey sounding words hoping some will be conned into believing they apply.

Wrong. The objective evidential value that an observation provides for the theory is independent of whether the theory is already presumed to be true.
Again, 100% of the burden is upon you. Claiming that observation X is evidence for theory A, inherently presumes that theory A is unique in its ability to predict X, and that given everything else know about the world that is related to X, we would not expect X to occur if theory A was false.

It is not true that claiming X is evidence for theory A inherently presumes theory A is unique in its ability to predict X. It is true that claiming X proves theory A is true inherently presumes theory A is unique in its ability to predict X.

There is nothing that "proves" a theory true in science. Yet there are many instances where a theory is unique in predicting an observation that its competitors under consideration cannot. Thus, you are quite clearly wrong that such uniqueness amount to proof of a theory. If what is already known can predict the outcome, then the theory that makes an additional assumption that happens to be consistent with that prediction has zero predictive power despite its inferior parsimony. IF the observation is predicted even if the theory is false, then the posterior Bayesian probability is unchanged in light of the observation and remains the same as the a priori probability.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Actually, I would contend that there would be a disproportionate number of religious adults in jail. The reason being that (considering the predominant religion in the US being Christianity) the Bible encourages the use of the "rod" to discipline children( and mind you with the specific to "not spare the rod"). However, I am not seeing much of an outrage regarding the use of the "rod" in such religious families. Better to nominate Blacks as the one group most susceptible to use physical force to discipline their children.

I do not doubt Bible-believing Christians have a higher incidence of support for corporal punishment but the fact is that Peterson has had a lot of defense by other blacks on explicitly racial (and regional, i.e. "southern blacks"), not religious, grounds.

But what would lead you to believe that there would not be an abundance of defense coming from conservative Bible literalist Christians if the presented justification were on religious grounds?

If you have an issue with blacks being "nominated" here, take it up with those doing the nominating when they defend Peterson on racial grounds. People like, but hardly limited to, Charles Barkley.

The issue I have here is the focus placed on one single group as being notorious for that type of physical abuse based "discipline" of children. Therefor, my pointing to the reality of another group being equally notorious for their indulging in physical abuse of their children.

 

[AdamWho]

So why is it the employers job to punish behavior?

(Yes, I know, they are performers and have similar contract clauses as actors to behave themselves)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And regarding the effectiveness of spanking, I really don't give a flip what studies are saying right now. As a relatively new parent, I am absolutely crazy that after the 20th century, there is little in the way of academic consensus in raising infants and kids. So I'm left with doing what I had done to me when I was a kid. If getting whapped with an angry beaver when I did something wrong was good enough for me as a child...

You are aware that this is precisely Petersen's argument too?

Do smilies mean nothing anymore?

When she used to beat my momma, when she was finished she used cut the whelps open to let out the blood and puss. And unlike me or her brother, Momma couldn't wear wear pants to school.

Jesus! No wonder your mother grew up to be a domestic abuser (re your story of how your mother used to beat your father unconscious when he got drunk).

Man, you don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you?

 

[laughing dog]

So why is it the employers job to punish behavior?

(Yes, I know, they are performers and have similar contract clauses as actors to behave themselves)

The NFL believes this behavior somehow diminishes its brand name and its profits.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So why is it the employers job to punish behavior?

(Yes, I know, they are performers and have similar contract clauses as actors to behave themselves)

The NFL believes this behavior somehow diminishes its brand name and its profits.

Also, the companies which pay it sponsorship money don't want to be associated with that kind of behaviour and threaten to stop paying them money unless they deal with it. If an employees behaviour risks his company losing money, then it doesn't matter if it's private behaviour or not.

 

[laughing dog]

never mind

 

[doubtingt]

So why is it the employers job to punish behavior?

(Yes, I know, they are performers and have similar contract clauses as actors to behave themselves)

The NFL believes this behavior somehow diminishes its brand name and its profits.

That doesn't really answer AdamWho's question. Brand promotion/protection explains why an employer would want to punish employee behavior, but not why society at large, the media, and politicians demand that employers do this and threaten to punish employers that don't.
It is clearly not because society demands that companies try to increase their profits by promoting their brand image and engage in PR crisis management.

The reality is that society doesn't generally demand this of employers. Would the people most loudly demanding Peterson's suspension want a mother in a min wage job fired for doing the same thing? Of course they'd be less likely to hear about it, but even if they did hear of it , would the response be similar?
To the extent that people would react differently to such a case is the degree to which the current reactions are fueled by emotional, political/ideological motives beyond concern for child welfare.

 

[fromderinside]

... The reality is that society doesn't generally demand this of employers.

That's it. Don't fraternize sexually with co-workers or you'll be fired.

Do you actually believe companies don't stick their noses into almost everything a person might do that could possibly harm the brand name? So x is arrested. Isn't x fired? Most don't wait to see whether x is guilty.

Where do you work? At the USSC?

 

[laughing dog]

The reality is that society doesn't generally demand this of employers. Would the people most loudly demanding Peterson's suspension want a mother in a min wage job fired for doing the same thing? Of course they'd be less likely to hear about it, but even if they did hear of it , would the response be similar?

Well, a suspension is different than being fired, so your example is more than a bit skewed.

To the extent that people would react differently to such a case is the degree to which the current reactions are fueled by emotional, political/ideological motives beyond concern for child welfare.

As are inept examples in responses in internet forums.