Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Republican voters are completely insane

If you were hoping that Helsinki might be Donald Trump's Joseph-Welch moment, think again.  Donald Trump will not suffer any negative consequences from his disastrous and treasonous remarks.  This is why:
A new tracking poll from Reuters/ Ipsos on Tuesday showed that rank-and-file Republicans not only continue to support President Trump but refuse to believe he’s doing anything wrong. The most galling number from the survey is: 71 percent of Republicans approve of Trump’s handling of Russia... 
Overall, more than half of those polled (55 percent) disapproved of Trump’s handling of Russia and agree (59 percent) with U.S. intelligence findings about Russian attempts to tamper with the 2016 election. But, also worrying, is the fact that only 32 percent of Republicans believe that Russia attempted to intervene in the election.
This is really getting scary.  I used to think that Trump's claim that he could shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it was hyperbole.  I'm not so sure any more.


221 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 221 of 221
Don Geddis said...

And now, for a brief intermission: A parable about Cthulhu and ants: "This is the best explanation for higher powers I’ve ever really heard."

P.S. Thanks Peter, for offering the Jaynes reference.

Luke said...

@Peter Donis: (1/2)

> A good collection of data supporting this is in E. T. Jaynes's book, Probability Theory: The Logic Of Science. He uses Bayesian methods repeatedly to obtain results that are borne out by actual data, but which were either not reached at all by scientists in other fields, or were only reached after a much more laborious process of reasoning (that often ended up misleading people as well as being slower). Not all of his examples are in the social sciences, either; IIRC at least one is from thermodynamics.

Thanks for the Jaynes reference; if and when I need to do a deep dive into Bayesian inference, it looks quite promising as the kind of overview I like to start with. My favorite exposure to Bayesian inference so far comes from sensor fusion, when it was explained to me that Kalman filters are just Bayesian estimators. Before that, I just couldn't grok the seemingly random matrix multiplication.

> Luke: And if Bayesian inference is as awesome as you are currently portraying it, humanity is losing out tremendously every single second that Bayesian inference is not used to compare schools of thought in the social sciences.

> Don Geddis: … The sciences (especially social sciences and medicine) have been making decades (or centuries) of suboptimal reasoning (mistakes), because of their non-Bayesian thinking. …

> Luke: » Do you know this to be true based on anything empirical whatsoever, or have merely defined it to be true? « That is, can you show a correlation between optimality in reasoning in the social sciences and deployment of Bayesian thinking?

> Peter Donis: I've given one reference just now in response to Don.

As I hope the context makes clear, it is different to say that (i) "if the social sciences were to use more Bayesian inference, they would do better" and (ii) "it is quite reasonable to compare schools of thought in the social sciences with Bayesian inference". My contention is that (i) ⇏ (ii). Jaynes demonstrates (i), but not (ii). I never meant to contest (i); the reason I asked for explicit examples of it was to investigate the implicit induction from (i) → (ii). What I am imagining is that "The more Bayesian inference, the better!" actually stops being true well short of being able to compare entire schools of thought. And I'm more interested in what we are currently capable of doing, not what we might be able to do 200 years in the future. It is profoundly unfair for my current practice to be judged by promissory notes. (I suspect that "comparing schools of thought" as "comparing religions" via Bayesian inference, if possible, would require a massively collaborative effort.)

Luke said...

@Peter Donis: (2/2)

> If one person is trying to convince another person of the truth, there is no such thing as "consent".

Within a given formal system, I agree. Outside of everyone choosing to work within a given formal system, there are a plurality of ways to systematically represent phenomena. (Even measures of simplicity require some reference description language.) Unless you just meant acknowledging something like "there is a coffee cup next to my computer".

> If we are talking about interactions between humans, then your instinctive reaction against what seems to be "domination" in such an interaction is probably well-founded, because humans don't have complete knowledge of the truth and we're not very reliable at communicating it.

I think that human freedom exists, such that where we are going is a function of what we decide and not just what the laws of physics + initial state + intelligence-free randomness determine. You can force your preferences on me or we can find ways to cooperate. And yet, there is no such distinction with finite state automata. Everything is merely input; there is no "good" vs. "bad" input.

> However, Ron was talking about God, who, by hypotheses, does not suffer from those deficiencies.

If we are finite state machines, God surely would know the right pick-up lines to input into us. If instead there needs to be freely willed cooperation, then plausibly God need have no deficiencies for the status quo to obtain. What I suggest to those who think that we are FSMs and that there is nothing like what I've called "human freedom" above, ought to live as if that were true in every aspect of their lives. I'm not convinced very many do; I think most profess one thing while acting out another. I say that means we don't actually know what the professed thing looks like in a society. Possibly, the professed thing makes no sense whatsoever.

Luke said...

@Ron:

> > Then how are you using the Bernstein–von Mises theorem?

> To show that the initial choice of priors don't matter in the long run.

I've never seen a theorem applied via "a matter of taste". Either the theorem applies to the situation and you can show how via some mechanical procedure, or you have no idea whatsoever if your stopping point lies "in the long run".

> But if you want to demonstrate that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent and died on the cross to save us from our sins, that will be considerably more difficult.

The only thing that could be demonstrated to finite beings (us) is that God's a lot smarter / more powerful / more good than we are. As to Jesus' sacrifice, we would need an understanding of normative causation and as far as I know, we have nothing of the kind. It's all 'subjective', as if Cartesian dualism were actually true.

That being said, René Girard has done some pretty interesting things showing how scapegoating is foundational to culture and that if it weren't for the Jewish and Christian scriptures, we might never have come to see scapegoats as innocent. If people need to feel righteous and will not take full responsibility for their [in]actions, what happens to the residue? If the alternative to my faith is to punt on this issue, that is a distinct loss.

> I never said they couldn't possibly be super-natural. I simply don't see any evidence that they are anything but a human invention.

When you remain consistently silent on what would qualify them as super-natural, it is easy to suspect that per your means of evaluating the evidence, nothing would qualify. And just to be clear: 'super-natural' in this context reduces to "that which exceeds human capability". My issue here is that unlike F = GmM/r^2, which can be falsified by something almost indistinguishable (say, ^2.001), I suspect the only thing that would falsify your current notion of 'natural' is something really crazy. If God actually wants to help us explore reality and be better to each other, doing something really crazy is profoundly undesirable. So what you seem to have done—emphasis on "seem"—is render this particular understanding of God undetectable until the shit really hits the fan and all human efforts to fix it fails.

> This isn't on you. It's on God.

Actually, I'm saying that you've left yourself open to every rationalization in the book when the 10-year mark has arrived, for saying that whatever it was it wasn't God.

Ron said...

@Luke:

> I've never seen a theorem applied via "a matter of taste".

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The theorem itself is not a matter of taste. The theorem tells you that given the same evidence, two Bayesian reasoners will converge to the same posterior probability regardless of their priors. What is a matter of taste is choosing the cutoff threshold where you say, "That's good enough, P(X) is close enough to 1 that I'm going to proceed as if it were actually 1."

> scapegoating is foundational to culture and that if it weren't for the Jewish and Christian scriptures, we might never have come to see scapegoats as innocent

That assessment shows a profound ignorance of history. Christians were scapegoating well into the 1700s. Scapegoating didn't end with the advent of Christianity, it ended with the enlightenment.

> If we are finite state machines, God surely would know the right pick-up lines to input into us.

We are in fact finite-state machines. You even concede this yourself:

> The only thing that could be demonstrated to finite beings (us)

Luke said...

@Ron:

> Are you being intentionally obtuse?

No. The fact that you're currently within some acceptable ε of someone else after some number of updates doesn't mean that you both won't continue changing well outside of ± ε. Now, perhaps you were thinking of converging on only 0 or 1? If that's the case, I want to know how to think of all the evidence which strengthened the belief that reality is Newtonian in the 1800s; did that make it harder to understand quantum physics? (I'm trying to get at just what beliefs are approaching 0 or 1.)

> > scapegoating is foundational to culture and that if it weren't for the Jewish and Christian scriptures, we might never have come to see scapegoats as innocent

> That assessment shows a profound ignorance of history. Christians were scapegoating well into the 1700s. Scapegoating didn't end with the advent of Christianity, it ended with the enlightenment.

I didn't say that scapegoating ended with the advent of Christianity.

> We are in fact finite-state machines. You even concede this yourself:
>
> > The only thing that could be demonstrated to finite beings (us)

I don't see how "finite" ⇒ "finite state machine".

Publius said...

The Process Is What It Is, Not What You Would Wish It To Be

@Ron:
> In fact, that I am even *able* to sustain a disbelief in God shows that one of the following must be true:
>
> 1. God doesn't know what would convince me
>
> 2. God knows, but chooses not to do (or is incapable of doing) what would convince me
>
> 3. God made me in such a way that *nothing* will convince me
>
> (Logically, there is a fourth possibility, but I'll leave that as an exercise.)

4. A process to know God exists, but you refuse to follow it. Or, you start it, then drop out. Matthew 13:18-30

5. You worship your intellect, a form of neo-paganism. Romans 10:3

6. You know God exists, but you reject Him. Matthew 7:23

Ron said...

@Publius: why are you suddenly posting all these comments in all these long-dormant threads?

> 4. A process to know God exists, but you refuse to follow it. Or, you start it, then drop out. Matthew 13:18-30

I'll see your Mat13:18-30 and raise you Deu18:21-22, Luke21:32 and Mark16:18.

> 5. You worship your intellect, a form of neo-paganism. Romans 10:3

I don't worship anything. The whole concept of worship actually strikes me as kind of creepy and weird.

> 6. You know God exists, but you reject Him. Matthew 7:23

It's both, actually. I'm very certain God does not exist. But even if he did, any deity that requires belief without evidence as the price of salvation is not worthy of respect (let alone worship).

Publius said...

IF you wan to know the secret of the Colonel's 11 herbs and spices, you need to work for KFC first

@Ron:
>But even if he did, any deity that requires belief without evidence as the price of salvation is not worthy of respect (let alone worship).


This is how it works:
Matthew 13:1-23

Verses 10-16 are speaking to you — these verses give the procedure to know God.

Now let me quote from Wikipedia on the Parable of the Sower:
“Jesus says he teaches in parables because he does not want everyone to understand him, only those who are his followers. Those outside the group are not meant to understand them. Thus one must already be committed to following Jesus to fully understand his message and without that commitment one will never fully understand or be helped by his message. If one does not correctly understand the parables, this is a sign that one is not a true disciple of Jesus.[1] Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9-10, who preached to Israel knowing that his message would go unheeded and not understood, with the result that the Israelites' sins would not be forgiven and they would be punished by God for them.[2] This parable seems to be essential for understanding all the rest of Jesus' parables, as it makes clear that what is necessary to understand Jesus is a prior faith in him, and that Jesus will not enlighten those who refuse to believe in him.”


To summarize, here is the procedure:
1. Faith in Jesus comes first
2. Then you get the proof


You demand God show you the proof first, then you will believe (maybe).

God demands exactly the opposite: you must believe first, then you will get the proof.

The only thing stopping you is . . . ?

Publius said...

Now in syndication

@Ron:
>@Publius: why are you suddenly posting all these comments in all these long-dormant threads?

When there isn't new content, you turn to re-runs.

Ron said...

> you must believe first, then you will get the proof

That is a recipe for finding demagoguery, not truth.

> When there isn't new content, you turn to re-runs.

There's a lot of new content on the internet every day. Why pick on me?

Publius said...

John 14:27

>you must believe first, then you will get the proof

@Ron:
>That is a recipe for finding demagoguery, not truth.

You have undoubtedly employed such a process many times in your life already.
1. A significant life relationship likely evolved in this manner
2. You perhaps believed in the "Quantum Conspiracy" before you could prove it. [psst...pilot waves]
3. A biochemist may believe a specific molecule is therapeutic before it is proved.

Have you read philosopher William James? [as an atheist, you should]
William James gave a presentation to the philosophical clubs of Yale and Brown Universities in June 1896 called The Will to Believe.
From his introduction:

"I have brought with me to-night something like a sermon on justification by faith to read to you,—I mean an essay in justification of faith, a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical {2} intellect may not have been coerced. 'The Will to Believe,' accordingly, is the title of my paper."

The full text of The Will to Believe is here.

In The Will to Believe, James defends the right to violate the principle of evidentialism in order to justify the hypothesis of venturing. Through his philosophy of pragmatism, he justifies religious beliefs by using the results of his hypothetical venturing as evidence to support the hypothesis' truth. Therefore, this doctrine allows one assume the belief in God and prove its existence by what the belief brings to one's life.

Full text of The Will to Believe read as an audiobook 54:18

Video contrasting Clifford and James and the Will to Believe 6:39
This video discusses 3 premises of Clifford:
1. There is no evidence that God exists.
2. If there is no evidence that God exists, then it is wrong to believe He does.
3. It is wrong to believe that God exists.

Now returning to:
That is a recipe for finding demagoguery, not truth.

Why do you assume the goal is to find truth?
One may be seeking something more valuable, more important, than truth.

Truth is over-rated.

John 13:34-35

Ron said...

> You have undoubtedly employed such a process many times in your life already.

Don't confuse accepting something as a plausible hypothesis worthy of further investigation, and accepting something as the truth.

> Why do you assume the goal is to find truth?

I don't. I *choose* to seek the truth.

> Truth is over-rated.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Publius said...

You've done it

>> You have undoubtedly employed such a process many times in your life already.

@Ron
>Don't confuse accepting something as a plausible hypothesis worthy of further investigation, and accepting something as the truth.

"accepting something as a plausible hypothesis" -- isn't that the act of "belief"? You believe it, so you go forward with it. Belief isn't certainty; it may be accompanied with a fair amount of doubt.

>> Why do you assume the goal is to find truth?
>
>I don't. I *choose* to seek the truth.

You choose unskillfully.

Ron said...

> "accepting something as a plausible hypothesis" -- isn't that the act of "belief"?

No. Belief happens after you've accumulated enough evidence that you don't feel the need to put forth additional effort to accumulate any more.

> You choose unskillfully.

One of the things that I believe is that the Bible is a work of human mythology, so if you are trying to convince me of something you're not going to get a lot of leverage out of citing it.

Publius said...

Pragmatism

>No. Belief happens after you've accumulated enough evidence that you don't feel the need to put forth additional effort to accumulate any more.

Belief is surely more nuanced and complex than that.

William James, in The Will to Believe, classifies different levels of belief.

A hypothesis is a proposition, or idea, that’s presented to us as a possible belief. A live hypothesis is a proposition which it is, in fact, possible for us to believe, whereas a dead hypothesis is a proposition which it’s impossible for us to believe.

An option is a decision between two hypotheses. A live option is a decision between two live hypotheses; a dead option is a decision between two options at least one of which is dead. A forced option is a decision between two options which we can’t avoid making; an avoidable option is a decision between two options which we can avoid making. A momentous option is an irrevocable option for significant stakes; a trivial option is an option which is not irrevocable or for significant stakes. Finally, and most importantly of all, a genuine option is an option which is simultaneously living, forced, and momentous.

James gives two cases where we may will to believe in the absence of rational justification.

1) Self-fulfilling hypotheses. Some beliefs actually help to create the fact believed.

2) genuine option. For example, “Are there moral truths or not?” may be such an option. It’s forced, insofar as there’s no place to stand outside the option. It’s momentous, insofar as it might matter very much to us, even now, which hypothesis we adopt. And it may be living for us as well, if both the existence and the non-existence of moral truths present themselves to us as possible things to believe. In such a case, if the risks attached to failing to believe the truth are greater than the benefits incurred by avoiding falsehood, either because the risks are very great or because the benefit is very small, then it’s worth believing falsehoods in order increase our chances of believing the truth, and so we may will to believe one hypothesis, even in the absence of strong evidence in its support.

>One of the things that I believe is that the Bible is a work of human mythology, so if you are trying to convince me of something you're not going to get a lot of leverage out of citing it.

Tsk, tsk -- what at myths? Myths are durable containers for memes. Don't be dissing the memes.

However, other independent sources exist for the same theme:

Frankenstein

A Knowledgeable Mind: Too Much Knowledge, Too little Knowledge, Which is more Dangerous?

6 Ways Too Much Education, Knowledge And Information Can Hurt You

and finally:

How to Live on Twenty-Four Hours a Day by Arnold Bennett

also available as an audio book - many sources - here is one:

How to Live on 24 Hours A Day - FULL AudioBook by Arnold Bennett - Self Improvement - Time Mgmt


"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot."
-- Albert Einstein

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed.
If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed."

-- Mark Twain

Ron said...

> James gives two cases where we may will to believe in the absence of rational justification.

Fiar enough. But the question of whether or not God exists doesn't fall into either of those categories.

> Myths are durable containers for memes.

Indeed they are. And I have written in defense of them:

https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/09/chat-with-imaginary-friend.html

https://blog.rongarret.info/2010/10/myth-for-skeptics.html

That fiction can convey important ideas does not obviate the need to distinguish it from fact. (Frankenstein, i case you didn't know, is fiction.)

Publius said...

Frankenthread

>> James gives two cases where we may will to believe in the absence of rational justification.

>Fair enough. But the question of whether or not God exists doesn't fall into either of those categories.

Interesting, as James easy is about whether or not God exists is one of those categories -- and, in fact, was the motivation for the entire essay.

Elsewhere, however, you wrote:

>On the other hand, with regards to the question of whether or not God exists, the stakes couldn't be higher, so it's worth a lot of effort to get that one right. Hence, a lifetime of ongoing study.

>(Frankenstein, i case you didn't know, is fiction.)

Well, so far . . ..

Ron said...

> James easy [sic] is about whether or not God exists

Yes, I know. But he's simply *wrong*. Do a global search and replace of the word "God" with the word "Leprechauns" in his essay and it remains every bit as valid as it was before, which is to say, not at all.

Publius said...

To Ask the Overwhelming Question

@Ron:
>Do a global search and replace of the word "God" with the word "Leprechauns" in his essay and it remains every bit as valid as it was before, which is to say, not at all.

Substituting Leprechauns, the question is no longer living, forced, or momentous -- and not a "genuine option." "Leprechauns" is therefore not analogous.



Ron said...

> Substituting Leprechauns, the question is no longer living, forced, or momentous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

But it doesn't matter. The existence of Leprechauns is a question of *fact*. Either leprechauns exist (as something other than fictional characters), or they don't. If the existence of God is likewise a question of fact, then logic doesn't license you to start making shit up simply because the stakes are higher.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 221 of 221   Newer› Newest»