Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
FOXNews.com - White House Christmas Decor Featuring Mao Zedong Comes Under Fire
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/
I'm struggling to find the right words to describe my feelings regarding Mao Zedong on the White House Christmas tree-
I'm struggling to find the right words to describe my feelings regarding Mao Zedong on the White House Christmas tree-
Unbelievable: So remarkable as to elicit disbelief.Travesty: A mockingly undignified or trivializing treatment of a dignified subject.
Blasphemy: A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
Foreboding: An indication of impending danger or harm.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Spurious Relationship
Source
In statistics, a spurious relationship (or, sometimes, spurious correlation or spurious regression) is a mathematical relationship in which two occurrences have no causal connection, yet it may be inferred that they do, due to a certain third, unseen factor (referred to as a "confounding factor" or "lurking variable"). The spurious relationship gives an impression of a worthy link between two groups that is invalid when objectively examined.
The misleading correlation between two variables is produced through the operation of a third causal variable. In other words we find a correlation between A and B. So we have three possible relationships:
A causes B,
B causes A,
-OR-
C causes both A and B.
The last is a spurious correlation. In a regression model, where A is regressed on B, but C is found to be the true causal factor for B; this is called specification error. It is therefore often said that "Correlation does not imply causation".
The true causal chain may be
C => A => B
or even
A => C => B
or as illiterated above,
C =>A and C =>B
In statistics, a spurious relationship (or, sometimes, spurious correlation or spurious regression) is a mathematical relationship in which two occurrences have no causal connection, yet it may be inferred that they do, due to a certain third, unseen factor (referred to as a "confounding factor" or "lurking variable"). The spurious relationship gives an impression of a worthy link between two groups that is invalid when objectively examined.
The misleading correlation between two variables is produced through the operation of a third causal variable. In other words we find a correlation between A and B. So we have three possible relationships:
A causes B,
B causes A,
-OR-
C causes both A and B.
The last is a spurious correlation. In a regression model, where A is regressed on B, but C is found to be the true causal factor for B; this is called specification error. It is therefore often said that "Correlation does not imply causation".
The true causal chain may be
C => A => B
or even
A => C => B
or as illiterated above,
C =>A and C =>B
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation
Source
The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:
A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.
In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B even when no evidence supports this. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:
Read more HERE.
Fallacy Examples-
B causes A (reverse causation)
The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is going to be.
Therefore firemen cause fire.
Third factor C (the common-causal variable) causes both A and B
Spurious relationship
Sleeping with one's shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache.
Therefore, sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache.
The above example commits the correlation-implies-causation fallacy, as it prematurely concludes that sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache. A more plausible explanation is that both are caused by a third factor, in this case alcohol intoxication, which thereby gives rise to a correlation.
A causes B and B causes A
Increased pressure results in increased temperature.
Therefore pressure causes temperature.
The ideal gas law, PV=nRT describes the direct relationship between pressure and temperature (along with other factors) to show that there is a direct correlation between the two properties. Given a fixed mass, an increase in temperature will cause an increase in pressure; likewise, increased pressure will cause an increase in temperature. This demonstrates (possiblility 4) in that the two are directly proportional to each other and not independent functions.
Coincidence
With a decrease in the number of pirates, there has been an increase in global warming over the same period.
Therefore, global warming is caused by a lack of pirates.
Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply.
Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime.
The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:
A occurs in correlation with B.
Therefore, A causes B.
In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B even when no evidence supports this. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:
- A may be the cause of B.
- B may be the cause of A.
- Some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
- There may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
- The "relationship" is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.
Read more HERE.
Fallacy Examples-
B causes A (reverse causation)
The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is going to be.
Therefore firemen cause fire.
Third factor C (the common-causal variable) causes both A and B
Spurious relationship
Sleeping with one's shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache.
Therefore, sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache.
The above example commits the correlation-implies-causation fallacy, as it prematurely concludes that sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache. A more plausible explanation is that both are caused by a third factor, in this case alcohol intoxication, which thereby gives rise to a correlation.
A causes B and B causes A
Increased pressure results in increased temperature.
Therefore pressure causes temperature.
The ideal gas law, PV=nRT describes the direct relationship between pressure and temperature (along with other factors) to show that there is a direct correlation between the two properties. Given a fixed mass, an increase in temperature will cause an increase in pressure; likewise, increased pressure will cause an increase in temperature. This demonstrates (possiblility 4) in that the two are directly proportional to each other and not independent functions.
Coincidence
With a decrease in the number of pirates, there has been an increase in global warming over the same period.
Therefore, global warming is caused by a lack of pirates.
Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply.
Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Obama Gives Up Control of Internet
Gateway Pundit
This IS a BIG DEAL. All American leaders (especially Obama) need to wake up and realize that if they don't lead the world- someone worse will. What do these people gain by giving away the store? Are they working for the other side? How does this benefit the American people? These are the kind of questions that I ask myself. Does anyone have any real answers to these questions? Fine- call me a protectionist. If our representative leaders aren't interested in protecting the assets, the resources and the people of our country- then what good are they?
This IS a BIG DEAL. All American leaders (especially Obama) need to wake up and realize that if they don't lead the world- someone worse will. What do these people gain by giving away the store? Are they working for the other side? How does this benefit the American people? These are the kind of questions that I ask myself. Does anyone have any real answers to these questions? Fine- call me a protectionist. If our representative leaders aren't interested in protecting the assets, the resources and the people of our country- then what good are they?