Wllacer

What we're talking about when we talk about Judaism.

By: Davide Nadali and Andrea Polcaro

Despite Iraq’s troubles, archaeological research continues to expand. The Italian Archeological Expedition to Tell … Read more

The post Working in Sumer: the New Italian Archaeological Expedition at Nigin, Southern Iraq appeared first on The ASOR Blog.

I stole the title, adding the word “also”, from an article by Rafael Irizarry at Simply Stats (tweeted by Diego Kuonen).

First, brush clearing. Data scientists. Sounds like galloping bureaucratic title inflation has struck again, no? Skip it.

Irizarry says, “If there is something Roger, Jeff and I agree on is that this debate is not constructive. As Rob Kass suggests it’s time to move on to pragmatism.” (Roger Peng and Jeff Leek co-run the blog; Rob Kass is a named person in statistics. Top men all.)

Pragmatism is a failed philosophy; as such, it cannot be relied on for anything. It says “use whatever works”, which has a nice sound to it (unlike “data scientist”), until you realize you’ve merely pushed the problem back one level. What does works mean?

No, really. However you form an answer will be philosophical at base. So we cannot escape having to have a philosophy of probability after all. There has to be some definite definition of works, thus also of probability, else the results we provide have no meaning.

Irizarry:

Applied statisticians help answer questions with data. How should I design a roulette so my casino makes $? Does this fertilizer increase crop yield?…[skipping many good questions]… To do this we use a variety of techniques that have been successfully applied in the past and that we have mathematically shown to have desirable properties. Some of these tools are frequentist, some of them are Bayesian, some could be argued to be both, and some don’t even use probability. The Casino will do just fine with frequentist statistics, while the baseball team might want to apply a Bayesian approach to avoid overpaying for players that have simply been lucky.

Suppose a frequentist provides an answer to a casino. How does the casino interpret it? They must interpret it somehow. That means having a philosophy of probability. Same thing with the baseball team. Now this philosophy can be flawed, as many are, but it can be flawed in such a way that not much harm is done. That’s why it seems frequentism does not produce much harm for casinos and why the same is true for Bayesian approaches in player pay scales.

It’s even why approaches which “don’t even use probability” might not cause much harm. Incidentally, I’m guessing by “don’t use probability” Irizarry means some mathematical algorithm that spits out answers to given inputs, a comment I based on his use of “mathematically…desirable properties”. But this is to mistake mathematics for or as probability. Probability is not math.

There exists a branch of mathematics called probability (really measure theory) which is treated like any other branch; theorems proved, papers written, etc. But it isn’t really probability. The math only becomes probability when its applied to questions. At that point an interpretation, i.e. a philosophy, is needed. And it’s just as well to get the right one.

Why is frequentism the wrong interpretation? Because to say we can’t know any probability until the trump of doom sounds—a point in time which is theoretically infinitely far away—is silly. Why is Bayes the wrong interpretation? Well, it isn’t; not completely. The subjective version is.

Frequency can and should inform probability. Given the evidence, or premises, “In this box are six green interocitors and four red ones. One interocitor will be pulled from the box” the probability of “A green interocitor will be pulled” is 6/10. Even though there are no such things as interocitors. Hence no real relative frequencies.

Subjectivity is dangerous in probability. A subjective Bayesian could, relying on the theory, say, “I ate a bad burrito. The probability of pulling a green interocitor is 97.121151%”. How could you prove him wrong?

Answer: you cannot. Not if subjectivism is right. You cannot say his guess doesn’t “work”, because why? Because there are no interocitors. You can never do an “experiment.” Ah, but why would you want to? Experiments only work with observables, which are the backbone of science. But who said probability only had to be used in science? Well, many people do say it, at least by implication. That’s wrong, though.

The mistake is not only to improperly conflate mathematics with probability, but to confuse probability models with reality. We need be especially wary of the popular fallacy of assuming the parameters of probability models are reality (hence the endless consternation over “priors”). Although one should, as Irizarry insists, be flexible with the method one uses, we should always strive to get the right interpretation.

What’s the name of this correct way? Well, it doesn’t really have one. Logic, I suppose, à la Laplace, Keynes, Jaynes, Stove, etc. I’ve used this in the past, but come to think it’s limiting. Maybe the best name is probability as argument.

Dig a little deeper.

That's a common refrain expressed here at GetReligion concerning mainstream news coverage of religion.

When the Austin, Texas, police chief this week linked a gunman who shot up downtown buildings and tried to burn the Mexican Consulate with a Christian identity hate group, most news reports stuck to the barest of basic details about the group.

Evidence obtained by @Austin_Police determined Suspect McQuliams was a self-titled "High Priest" of the "Phineaus Priesthood."

— Chief Art Acevedo (@ArtAcevedo) December 1, 2014

The Austin American Statesman reported:

AUSTIN, Texas -- Downtown shooter Larry Steven McQuilliams was a lone wolf extremist who aligned himself with an ultraconservative Christian movement that was based on racist undertones and government distrust, according to new details about the case provided by Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo on Monday. ...

Literature found inside the rented white minivan McQuilliams used during the shooting showed a connection to a movement called the Phineas Priesthood, an anti-Semitic, anti-miscegenation movement first mentioned in the 1990 book "Vigilantes in Christendom." Police found that book along with a handwritten note in which McQuilliams identified himself as a priest in the war against "anti-God people," Acevedo said.
 

Austin police chief: Gunman Larry McQuilliams had “hate in his heart” ... http://t.co/kTrrtcpVAY pic.twitter.com/IN1pioTNKi

— Austin Statesman (@statesman) December 2, 2014

And the Los Angeles Times reported:

McQuilliams, 49, belonged to the Phineas Priesthood, police said, describing the organization as a white supremacist group based in the Pacific Northwest that is responsible for armed robberies, abortion clinic bombings and planned attacks on FBI buildings. 

He served time for a 1992 armed robbery and was released in 2000, police said, but acted alone in carefully planning Friday’s attack.

Days earlier, McQuilliams had rented a white van and packed it with supplies, including several guns, ammunition, a gas mask, homemade explosives, a list of 34 targets (among them two churches) and a book, “Vigilantes of Christendom,” in which he left a note describing himself as a priest against “anti-God people,” Acevedo said.

Austin gunman linked to extremist Christian group, police say http://t.co/8cgNuYxcPd

— L.A. Times National (@latimesnational) December 1, 2014

But beyond the information that everyone reported, the Washington Post contacted an expert to provide insight:

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told The Post that the Phineas Priesthood is a “concept” that originated with “Vigilantes of Christendom,” which came out in 1990. The group takes its name from a story about the biblical figure of Phineas in the book of Numbers.

In the story, Phineas slays an Israelite man and a Midianite woman who were together in a tent. “To the extreme right, this [story] is a biblical injunction against race mixing,” Potok said. Phineas Priests would also use the passage to justify violent acts in the name of their beliefs.  “It’s very much a self-calling,” Potok said of those who would identify as Phineas Priesthood members.  “If you commit a Phineas act…you can be considered a Phineas priest.” 

In a backgrounder, the Anti-defamation league wrote that “the Phineas Priesthood is not a membership organization in the traditional sense: there are no meetings, rallies or newsletters.” The ADL added that “extremists become ‘members’ when they commit ‘Phineas acts:’ any violent activity against ‘non-whites.’” Potok noted that the affiliation does not have a national structure. ...

Its members identify themseves (sic) as Christians, however, “they are really not Christians in any sense that a christian (sic) would accept,” Potok added. Most mainstream American Christians, he said, would find a Phineas Priest’s reading of scripture to be “heretical."

Police:Austin shooter was a ‘homegrown American extremist’ - The Washington Post /Is that the same thing as terrorist http://t.co/enfTvjfPvh

— PoliticQues (@politicques) December 1, 2014

Like its counterparts, the Post obviously was working on deadline (as evidenced by the typos in the blockquote above).

But digging a little deeper allowed the Post's story to rise above the rest in terms of the religious content.

P.S. Since I mentioned someone else's typos, I'm bound to have some. Feel free to point them out.

Read 27 remaining paragraphs | Comments