3 ms·

I wonder if we can make that distinction either. It would be solution aversion if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because you perceive th

by pekk 11y ago

I wonder if we can make that distinction either. It would be solution aversion if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because you perceive that the main use of citing an increasing suicide rate is to push homeopathic education. If your aversion to certain proponents relates back to what it is they are proposing, it is not really an aversion to those proponents but to their proposals. Maybe proponent aversion would be if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because Obama (or black people, "liberals" etc.) had made that claim, independent of the qualities of proposed solutions. If someone's statements can't be trusted to be true, that doesn't rationally mean their statements are evidence of their contradictions. Even if you don't trust anything Obama says, that shouldn't normally mean that "Obama says that P" is evidence of not-P.

Udik 11y ago
> It would be solution aversion if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because you perceive that the main use of citing an increasing suicide rate is to push homeopathic education. It's not as I understood it. Solution aversion would be denying that the rate of suicides has increased just because I don't think anybody should be administered psychological well being tests. Maybe because I'm secretly afraid that the effectiveness of those tests would prove my ideologically-motivated position wrong. Other than that, I shouldn't be able to provide much logical support for my stance. > If your aversion to certain proponents relates back to what it is they are proposing, it is not really an aversion to those proponents but to their proposals. If it were just an aversion to their proposals, it wouldn't reflect itself onto the statement that is ultimately being denied. I could be completely averse to the teaching of homeopathy, but that wouldn't influence my attitude towards the stated problem. In order to be so, there might have to be the relation: Proposed solution -> assessment of the proponent -> assessment of their original statement. > because Obama (or black people, "liberals" etc.) had made that claim, independent of the qualities of proposed solutions. The proposed solution in fact allows me to place the proponent into a classification bin: scientist vs homeopath, conservative vs liberal, alarmist vs denialist. Or just savy vs fool. > shouldn't normally mean that "Obama says that P" is evidence of not-P. Not strictly, but remember that, in general terms, non-P is not equally probable to P. P is a specific statement about reality; non-P is any possible other configuration of reality that negates P. That's why the burden of the proof is generally on who makes assertions, not on who denies them.
lotharbot 11y ago
> "Proponent aversion would be if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because Obama ... had made that claim" Another example might be gun/crime statistics from the NRA vs gun/crime statistics from gun-control advocates. There's the inherent suspicion that the statistics had been twisted to fit an agenda, because you've caught that proponent or someone from the same ideological group doing it before, and that therefore the statistics themselves are untrustworthy. I apply a mental correction factor when dealing with a group I think lies for agenda purposes -- I figure they're spinning things maximally in their favor, so what they claim forms one end of my error bars. Sometimes my expectations regarding the size of the error bars in that field lead me to believe that it's likely the data is actually centered all the way on the other side. In that sense, their statements can imply their own contradiction in some circumstances.
- hga 11y ago
  Here, though, most of the raw data comes from the FBI/DOJ, so pretty much everyone accepts it (even if some number of homicides are scored as "accidents", as happened in my home town) and can easily go back to it; the same is not true for many many other domains like the climate. But the statistics are indeed critical, or must be viewed critically. E.g. the Kellerman study that said "N times more likely to be killed with a gun in the house!!! than use it to kill an intruder" is utterly bogus from the start, because gun owners don't score kills as the only type of successful self-defense uses. That sort of critical thought, though, isn't particularly fashionable....
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    even the raw data is subject to questions, two of which you point out: (1) is everything being categorized correctly, and (2) are we counting the right thing?

by pekk 11y ago

Udik 11y ago

> It would be solution aversion if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because you perceive that the main use of citing an increasing suicide rate is to push homeopathic education. It's not as I understood it. Solution aversion would be denying that the rate of suicides has increased just because I don't think anybody should be administered psychological well being tests. Maybe because I'm secretly afraid that the effectiveness of those tests would prove my ideologically-motivated position wrong. Other than that, I shouldn't be able to provide much logical support for my stance. > If your aversion to certain proponents relates back to what it is they are proposing, it is not really an aversion to those proponents but to their proposals. If it were just an aversion to their proposals, it wouldn't reflect itself onto the statement that is ultimately being denied. I could be completely averse to the teaching of homeopathy, but that wouldn't influence my attitude towards the stated problem. In order to be so, there might have to be the relation: Proposed solution -> assessment of the proponent -> assessment of their original statement. > because Obama (or black people, "liberals" etc.) had made that claim, independent of the qualities of proposed solutions. The proposed solution in fact allows me to place the proponent into a classification bin: scientist vs homeopath, conservative vs liberal, alarmist vs denialist. Or just savy vs fool. > shouldn't normally mean that "Obama says that P" is evidence of not-P. Not strictly, but remember that, in general terms, non-P is not equally probable to P. P is a specific statement about reality; non-P is any possible other configuration of reality that negates P. That's why the burden of the proof is generally on who makes assertions, not on who denies them.

lotharbot 11y ago

> "Proponent aversion would be if you denied that the rate of suicides has been growing because Obama ... had made that claim" Another example might be gun/crime statistics from the NRA vs gun/crime statistics from gun-control advocates. There's the inherent suspicion that the statistics had been twisted to fit an agenda, because you've caught that proponent or someone from the same ideological group doing it before, and that therefore the statistics themselves are untrustworthy. I apply a mental correction factor when dealing with a group I think lies for agenda purposes -- I figure they're spinning things maximally in their favor, so what they claim forms one end of my error bars. Sometimes my expectations regarding the size of the error bars in that field lead me to believe that it's likely the data is actually centered all the way on the other side. In that sense, their statements can imply their own contradiction in some circumstances.

hga 11y ago
Here, though, most of the raw data comes from the FBI/DOJ, so pretty much everyone accepts it (even if some number of homicides are scored as "accidents", as happened in my home town) and can easily go back to it; the same is not true for many many other domains like the climate. But the statistics are indeed critical, or must be viewed critically. E.g. the Kellerman study that said "N times more likely to be killed with a gun in the house!!! than use it to kill an intruder" is utterly bogus from the start, because gun owners don't score kills as the only type of successful self-defense uses. That sort of critical thought, though, isn't particularly fashionable....
- lotharbot 11y ago
  even the raw data is subject to questions, two of which you point out: (1) is everything being categorized correctly, and (2) are we counting the right thing?