how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
358 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Check the data, the "corruption" contention doesn't add up The article links to »www.maplight.org/FISA_June08
which provides the following data:
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)
so these legislators CHANGED THEIR VOTE for an average of LESS THAN $5K EACH???
This is a completely unsupportable conclusion. You are simply foaming at the mouth and screaming CORRUPTION! because it didn't come out the way you wanted it to.
It is quite a bit more likely that the PACs simply did not give as much money to the rabidly anti-telco and anti-national-security congresspeople. It's not like they didn't know what their positions were likely to be. | | |
|
| said by MyDogHsFleas:so these legislators CHANGED THEIR VOTE for an average of LESS THAN $5K EACH??? This is a completely unsupportable conclusion. You are simply foaming at the mouth and screaming CORRUPTION! because it didn't come out the way you wanted it to. Statistics need to be taught more in this nations schools... Average numbers can be, and in this case, are seriously misleading. Look at the individual contributions and you see some totaling more than $25,000.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by NetAdmin1:said by MyDogHsFleas:so these legislators CHANGED THEIR VOTE for an average of LESS THAN $5K EACH??? This is a completely unsupportable conclusion. You are simply foaming at the mouth and screaming CORRUPTION! because it didn't come out the way you wanted it to. Statistics need to be taught more in this nations schools... Average numbers can be, and in this case, are seriously misleading. Look at the individual contributions and you see some totaling more than $25,000. I learned in school that statistics also say you can't draw cause and effect conclusions from data that shows a linkage, especially if you gather data after the fact to try to support a conclusion you've already decided is true. | |
| said by MyDogHsFleas:I learned in school that statistics also say you can't draw cause and effect conclusions from data that shows a linkage, especially if you gather data after the fact to try to support a conclusion you've already decided is true. I'd love to see a source for that, because it is only partially true. You can't draw a cause and effect relationship from correlation alone, it doesn't matter what your motivation.
Actually, based on the data presented, you really can't draw any conclusion, regardless of the fact of what anyone believes. The numbers present don't give you any hint of a causal relationship, however, they do illustrate that those companies affected by the legislation did attempt to influence the congress-folk in question. Campaign contributions are really nothing more than legal bribes.
However, everyone knows that Congress critters are bought every day and seeing the contributions is necessary in understanding all the possible motivations of their voting behavior. To say that Reps is not influenced by contributions is pretty ballsy.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by NetAdmin1:said by MyDogHsFleas:I learned in school that statistics also say you can't draw cause and effect conclusions from data that shows a linkage, especially if you gather data after the fact to try to support a conclusion you've already decided is true. I'd love to see a source for that, because it is only partially true. You can't draw a cause and effect relationship from correlation alone, it doesn't matter what your motivation. Yes, your motivation matters. If you don't write down a testable hypothesis before you do the analysis, but you decide your conclusion and then go looking for data to support it, it is not science, it's demagoguery.
Want a source? Well Google is your friend. This is not terribly authoritative but it'll do... it was literally the first link that came up when I searched on "correlation vs. cause effect". I've highlighted a couple of passages.
»atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/s···tion.htm
quote:
Science, Correlation, and Causation
At this point, one might wonder what the difference is between the fallacy of correlation vs. causation and the normal process of science. After all, isn't much of science a matter of correlating various observations and constructing theories about why they occur? There is some justice in asking this question - but nevertheless, there are important differences. Let's consider this example:
6. When the sun is visible, we have daylight. When the sun is gone, we don't have daylight. Therefore, the sun is responsible for daylight.
Isn't this an example of confusing correlation and causation? Why can't we say:
7. Daylight is caused by the luminescent radiance of Apollo. It just seems like daylight is caused by the sun because Apollo habitually travels alongside it. But Apollo is the real cause of light.
Well, we certainly could say that - but what's the difference between examples #6 and #7? What can make #6 justified rather than a fallacy? There are a couple of key characteristics - the first and perhaps the most important of which is that of testable predictions.
A theory is scientific if we can use it to make testable predictions about other observations we might be able to make. Are there testable predictions we can derive from example #6? Yes: when a place my hand between my eyes and the sun, the light is blocked; when clouds move between the sun and an object, it is shrouded in darkness; and when the moon moves between our planet and the sun, there is a cone of darkness on the planet.
All of these and more predictions can be made, resulting in observations that are consistent with the idea that the sun is responsible for daylight. Are there any predictions that we can derive from example #7? No - and if we tried, we wouldn't be able to reliably test them.
This points us to a second important issue that helps us separate a valid from an invalid causal connection: do we have any viable alternatives? If #7 were genuinely and successfully tested, then we would have much less justification for confidently asserting #6. The fact of the matter is, though, that there aren't any viable alternatives to #6.
So how can we be absolutely certain that an correlation between two events indicates a causal relationship? We can't, actually - the knowledge provided by the scientific method is never absolutely certain. Science forces us to remain open to the possibility that new evidence will cause a change in what we know and believe. Science doesn't allow us to become complacent, assuming that we already know everything.
Science is, however, quite reliable. With enough information, we can justify concluding that a strong correlation between two events points to a causal relationship. When all reliable evidence points to one conclusion while no reliable evidence points to anything else, then we don't commit the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation by concluding that we have likely identified the cause of the phenomenon in question.
In this case there are certainly alternative explanations which are just as good, a couple of which I've already presented.
Actually, based on the data presented, you really can't draw any conclusion, regardless of the fact of what anyone believes. The numbers present don't give you any hint of a causal relationship, however, they do illustrate that those companies affected by the legislation did attempt to influence the congress-folk in question. Campaign contributions are really nothing more than legal bribes.
Wow. So, giving money to a cause I believe in is reduced to "a legal bribe"? That is exactly what PACs do, on a group basis.
However, everyone knows that Congress critters are bought every day and seeing the contributions is necessary in understanding all the possible motivations of their voting behavior. To say that Reps is not influenced by contributions is pretty ballsy.
It's a two way relationship. The contributions are made to reps who agree with the positions you believe in. And not to those whose positions you oppose. What is wrong with that? | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:I learned in school that statistics also say you can't draw cause and effect conclusions from data that shows a linkage, especially if you gather data after the fact to try to support a conclusion you've already decided is true. Sounds kinda like the run up to the Iraq invasion, to me.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:If you don't write down a testable hypothesis before you do the analysis, but you decide your conclusion and then go looking for data to support it, it is not science, it's demagoguery. It's also called "curve fitting." Fitting the data or analysis to known events.
Mark | |
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:Yes, your motivation matters. If you don't write down a testable hypothesis before you do the analysis, but you decide your conclusion and then go looking for data to support it, it is not science, it's demagoguery. Often that testable hypothesis comes from believing that the data will support your conclusion. Scientists usually start with a preconceived notion and work backwards. For example, we'll pick on astrophysics for this example, in astrophysics the notion of some phenomena were conceived before observable data existed to support it. Those physicists are currently gathering data to prove their belief in that concept or idea. They are working backwards to gather data to support their idea.
That method is only problematic when any evidence that doesn't support your idea or hypothesis is dismissed...
Wow. So, giving money to a cause I believe in is reduced to "a legal bribe"? That is exactly what PACs do, on a group basis. The definition of a bribe:
bribe (brīb) pronunciation
n.
1. Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.
2. Something serving to influence or persuade.
A political contribution fits the definition of a bribe because you are giving money to a candidate that you support to induce him to support your ideas or to continue to support you ideas. The notion that money talk is true in business as well as politics.
It's a two way relationship. The contributions are made to reps who agree with the positions you believe in. And not to those whose positions you oppose. What is wrong with that? Not always. PACs are also active in attempting to garner support for their positions. Why spend money on someone you KNOW supports you when you can use that money to persuade someone to vote your way who may not have decided or currently does not support that idea. The idea that PACs only give money to those who support a set of ideas is only part of the picture of what happens.
As well, the way PACs work with their money lends support to the idea that they are the one's in control. When PACs threaten the flow of money to a campaign, it usually has the effect they desire - the candidate falls in line.
The fact is this... The numbers lend credence to the fact that the named congress-folk maybe influenced by the PACs money, but to say that they voted the way they did BECAUSE of the contribution is a conclusion that can't be made with the data you have.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
