This week's book giveaway is in the Servlets forum.
We're giving away four copies of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP and have Joel Murach on-line!
See this thread for details.
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes A nice example of fallacies... Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "A nice example of fallacies..." Watch "A nice example of fallacies..." New topic
Author

A nice example of fallacies...

Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8801
    
    5
for all you fans:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/10/09/candy-violence-correlation-causation-and-association/

Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Seetharaman Venkatasamy
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2008
Posts: 5575

may be ...
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
When visiting political forums or listening to political discussions, not a day goes by when I don't encounter some example of the fixed pie fallacy in regards to economic policy. The idea that some groups of people starve or are poor because other groups are rich is a dangerously destructive fallacy that seems to be increasingly driving ill-conceived policy discussions.

Greg Charles
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 01, 2001
Posts: 2833
    
  11

One common kind of fallacy, which the linked article is clearly guilty of, is implying that research studies draw conclusions, when really all they do is report correlations. That's their purpose. The correlation may or may not imply causation and most studies will spend some time discussing the evidence for causation, and also the statistical significance of the findings. However, overzealous media, as well as sarcastic would-be debunkers like this guy gloss over such details. I'm all for legitimate criticism of methods and findings, but when peppered with "Gee, I wonder ..." type of comments, I know I'm reading the work of an idiot, and worse: an idiot with an agenda.

The best criticism of the findings was:


But what’s even more astonishing is that the candy-eating behavior of 17,380 children was not reported. What if 10,000 of those children also reported eating candy at age 10 daily? Wouldn’t that basically nullify the researchers’ findings?


He's right that one percentage (the rate of convicted criminals that were candy-eaters) wouldn't have any context without the rate of candy-eaters in the general population, and therefore would be meaningless. However, somehow he missed that he quoted this percentage himself mere lines earlier.


About 69 percent of those who reported having committed violent acts also reported eating candy daily at age 10, compared to 42 percent of those who did not have a violent criminal past, the study authors noted.


Not only did he not read the study he is criticizing, but he didn't even carefully read the excerpted parts from the 200 word US News and World Report article he using as a source.
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: A nice example of fallacies...