Innumeracy

[Hügo Krüger]

I just finished reading three books which might seem totally unrelated, 

Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment now

Thomas Sowell’s new Discrimination and disparities and;

Tim Noakes’s lore of nutrition.

These three might seem slightly unrelated, however there is one common theme in all of them: innumeracy among intellectuals and academics in general. 

The one particular part of mathematics that is absent is statistics, which can also be extended into science a bit. 

Closer scrutiny of scientific conclusions on nutrition, discrimination or human progress cannot be done with what is called Observation studies (the basic correlation and causation fallacy). 

Observation studies only allow us to set hypothesis, but we cannot draw conclusions unless we can explain the mechanism. 

Here is a practical example:

We get fatter, because we eat more calories than we expend. 

This is true, however it does not explain why we get fat. Thus it does not infer causation. We now know that we get fat because our body is producing fat from carbohydrates (mainly sugar). Therefore the caloric deficit hypothesis is refuted.

Thomas Sowell points this out when people neglect certain stastics (omission) or group things together that should not be grouped together (commission).

Steven Pinker points it out that a system of shared intelligence (i.e. a free market) might seem less efficient than a single intelligent system, i.e. a collective plan. He points to serial innumeracy among academia, mainly the fallacy of commission. 

In Pinker’s last book he shows that humanity is at a time where literary has never been higher. In fact most children born after the 90% can read or write. Thus literary and hunger has been achieved.

The next challenge of development will be to get counter-intuitive statistical literary to be part of the culture. 

What do you guys think?

[Erik Peers]

The logic of becoming overweight is even more counter intuitive. We do not become fat because we eat more. The causation is in the other direction. We eat more because we get fat. If insulin is pushing ingested calories into fat, they are not availabe for energy, so we need to eat more.

However because volume eaten and putting on weight correlate causation is assumed.

This logical fallasy abounds.

For instance;

Whites enforced apartheid

Whites are richer than blacks

Therefore whites are rich because blacks are poor.

Therefore expropriation without compensation etc

Vs

Apartheid limited economic freedom

Therefore blacks were poor

Therefore more economic freedom is needed

Counter-intuitive literacy cannot become part if any culture by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't be counter intuitive.

The best we can hope for is to influence the leaders so that what is now counter intuitive becomes the new accepted norm.

To me the most illogical phallousy is curative rape. How can any man make lesbians prefer men to woman by commiting acts of violence against those women.

The only way I can console myself in that world of idiocyis to remember;

To those who understand

No explanation is necessary

To those who don't

No explanation is possible

Cognitive dissonance is alive and well.

But most prevalent amongst the post modern academic social justice warriors. They do the most harm.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Gavin Weiman]

@ Eric

Nice one

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186