“Correlated” Facts and How Not To Play The Didgeridoo
Censorship, Current Affairs, Loose Ends September 3rd, 2008At the risk of repetition, there is a good piece on correlation on the BBC.
And a piece on offense overriding expression of ideas is also interesting.
I just finished The Gay Science. Really good and really quotable (unfortunately for you dear reader!). “April weather” is present in it.
Anti Citizen One
September 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
No risk of repetition - excellent article on correlation.
Causality is a nice philosophical doctrine - but so are any number of other things - this does not mean they are correct nor that the propositions they state should be taken authoritatively.
My general rants against the ‘heresy’ of statistics is less to do with an attack on statistics than the media, political and rehtorical portrayal and use of statistical data. I think these points on causality are equally important.
Nice example recently. In the same newspaper on seperate pages two banner headline articles on health issues. One states how the traditional cooked breakfast increases the risks of bowel cancer by x% - general gist dont eat processed meats and fried food etc. or bad things will happen to you. The other article (concerning different research by a different university) declares that certain components of a traditional cooked breakfast (i.e. eggs) when eaten daily actually reduce cholestoral and assist in weight loss.
From a philosophy of science perspective it emphasised that science is not one monolithic institution (at least at the research level) different research projects may tackle different, similar or identical issues from a variety of perspectives and contradiction, confusion (at least when research findings become media stories), and differences of opinion are commonplace.
I guess really its all the media’s fault - oh yes and us the gullible reading public who place authority on the utterances of science and trust on the accuracy of media reportage and political applications of those utterances.
—-
Second article interesting too. But we’ve had that debate a hundred times.
I suppose the interesting question is - if the publishers knew that the material they were publishing was going to cause offence would they have printed it anyway?
Should we be more careful of causing offence to some cultures rather than others? (A real political hot potato).
Having apologised and accepted the possibility of its having committed a faux pas would the publishers realistically consider recalling the book and pulping it? (I doubt so very much).
And the ultimate questions regarding the expression of free ideas (and its tension with cultural norms) - has the offense caused an irreperable change in the fabric of their cosmology? Can one ever turn back? Is it even desirable to supress something even if it causes offence?
hmmm.
Nice links.