“The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides taught that the only things that are real are things which never change... and the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus taught that everything changes. If you superimpose their two views, you get this result: Nothing is real.” ― Philip K. Dick @Music and Moral Philosophy, this is a fantastic lecture and you are a wonderful teacher. Thank you.

@musicandmoralphilosophy9610

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for the kind feedback!

Nice video bro it really easy and simple

beautiful :) when the author "busted" the 82% thing, he provided one misinterpretation instead of another! who told that the number of religious/non-religious people is equal? let's assume there were 1000 religious and 100 non-religious people. then we have 320+42=362 out of 1100 (which is ~33%) ;) ya know..

@musicandmoralphilosophy9610

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Eugene! Thanks for commenting. The first issue here involves the use of language. "Religious and non religious people" suggests the whole. Using your example, in which case it is understood that the whole is only representative of a specified sample, this would mean that 82% of 1100 people (i.e. 902 people) support Euthanasia. According to your hypothetical sample, however, only 360 religious-identifying people (36%) and 46 non-religious-identifying people reported supporting euthanasia. Thus, 406 people supporting euthanasia only account for 36.9% of the whole sample.

@EugeneVinogradov

2 жыл бұрын

@@musicandmoralphilosophy9610 hahaha, yes, my version was also wrong :) I confused 36 and 46 with 32 and 42, my mistake. Sorry for this. Indeed, it should be 360+46. I would put it as "miscalculation" than "misinterpretation." interpretations rather depend on the assumptions made. Here I observed a popular error: if one has two samples (any kind of dichotomy, e.g., a poll among smokers vs non-smokers), the sample sizes are often considered to be equal in further calculations (number of smokers = number of non-smokers). which does not reflect the real distribution of those two categories in the population. both these details (1- % of population; and 2 - opinion distribution withn those people) are needed for drawing a correct conclusion. Sorry for these remarks, it is due to my "Déformation professionnelle" :)

Is it not that of the 82%, 46% was non religious and 36% was religious? Like 82 people voted, 46 was non religious and 36 was religious.

@musicandmoralphilosophy9610

2 ай бұрын

Good question, but problems remain. 1. In the example you give 46 and 36 account for totals not averages. 46/82 is actually 56% of 82 and 36 is 43%. So, no, the 82% cannot represent the whole-it can only represent 82% of some given sample. …Unless the person was being careless with both the data (the assertion concerning 82% of the population) and the graph (because images which accompany research are another common area for potential ambiguity and deception). 2. We are to assume that the remaining 18% account for all the religious and non-religious folk who do not support euthanasia. (The fact that it is a controversial issue alone should be enough to raise a degree of suspicion and skepticism here. But without pressing into that direction-raising questions of random samples, sample sizes, etc.-there is another problem to consider:) 46% of non-religious would leave 54% of non-religious folk unaccounted for. Similarly, there is an unaddressed 64% of religious people. Are we to believe that this 118% of religious and non-religious folk fit into the missing 18%? No, this would have to be a sample containing two groups, obtaining a percentage from each group, and then averaging those averages together to get the % “of [implicitly all] religious and non-religious people.” 3. Understanding, then, that we are dealing with two different groups in the mix (each group having divided opinions), there is a third reason to give pause here. With just a face-value glance at the data, it should strike us immediately that each of these percentages is less than 50%. We should be cautious in what we attempt to infer from any sample that is smaller than 50%. If 36% of males age 18-22 have a tattoo and John is a 20-year-old male, it may well be that he has a tattoo, but it would be a weak and fallacious claim to assert that he most likely has a tattoo-that there is, say, an 82% probability that he does (simply because, perhaps, 36% of males and 46% of females in his demographic have one). What this data attempts to claim is that because a minority of a sample population (approx.. 41%) supports euthanasia, the majority of the population (82%) supports euthanasia. If only 36% of one group gave some product a 4+-star review, and only 46% of another group gave it a rating of 4+ stars... and if Amazon tries to convince me that, based on this data, 82% of folks have given the product a rating of 4 stars or higher... I'm not buying it. :) I hope this helps!

'Of the 82% of the surveyed religious and non religious people who supported euthanasia, 46/82 were non-religious and 36/82 were religious' would be the obvious interpretation of the figure. Could well be incorrect data though