Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Dannyalcatraz]

Businessmen are in the business of making money. If their "assumption" was wrong, someone would have noticed it and published articles and such saying, "Hey guys, the way to make money really is to hire people with sloppy resumes". Then it would have caught on that not hiring people with sloppy resumes doesn't actually make you more money. That hasn't happened and there is a very good reason for it. They aren't wrong. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are not common enough to make it worth the risk.

Besides being human and fallible, businessmen are also fairly egocentric, as a group, and may often assume they know things as facts when in fact they are things everyone takes for granted without scrutiny. Some even go so far as to think they know better than the data they get from even the best studies.

Examples:

1) Before the advent of the personal computer, several CEOs of computer building companies were openly skeptical that anyone would want a computer for personal use.

2) Coke thought they could replace the original formula with New Coke

3) Ford thought they'd only pay out a few thousand dollars per wrongful death claims resulting from collisions involving Pintos.

4) companies keep trying rotating shift scheduling despite it being a known productivity killer AND a major factor in decreasing workplace safety, as well as being correlate with dozens of ailments- including heart disease and diabetes- as shown by decades of workplace studies.

 

[Maxperson]

Besides being human and fallible, businessmen are also fairly egocentric, as a group, and may often assume they know things as facts when in fact they are things everyone takes for granted without scrutiny. Some even go so far as to think they know better than the data they get from even the best studies.

Examples:

1) Before the advent of the personal computer, several CEOs of computer building companies were openly skeptical that anyone would want a computer for personal use.

2) Coke thought they could replace the original formula with New Coke

3) Ford thought they'd only pay out a few thousand dollars per wrongful death claims resulting from collisions involving Pintos.

4) companies keep trying rotating shift scheduling despite it being a known productivity killer AND a major factor in decreasing workplace safety, as well as being correlate with dozens of ailments- including heart disease and diabetes- as shown by decades of workplace studies.

For those examples to be accurate ones, the following would also have to be true.

1) No CEO ever sold personal computers, because that would be a change to how things are done.

2) We still have only New Coke, because no one admitted to it being a mistake and changed it back.

3) Virtually every company had to have made Pintos and done the same thing.

4) Virtually every company has to use rotating shift scheduling.

None of the above is true. Innovators figure out new ways to do things and cause change. Someone would have figured out long ago that sloppy work habits with a resume don't usually mean sloppy work habits in general if it wasn't true. It then would have caught on with a great many businesses. Not all for sure, but with a large number. We would have a situation like the rotating shift. Many would do it and many would not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Interestingly, I said quite the opposite. So, I think you're lying to yourself if you think you're actually arguing against my position.

Okay, I must have misread you. I'm glad we're in agreement that statistics will lie to you.

Appeal to authority does not strengthen your position. Your using such an appeal makes others less comfortable that you know what you're talking about.

It's not an appeal to authority. It would be that if I referenced the authority and used that as my argument. "A PhD says that you're wrong!" Instead, I referenced my experiences when they were questioned as to how I came to my conclusions. I was speaking to my experience, not substituting an authority for my argument.

I'm a physicist. You won't impress me by claiming hours of consultation with people with PhDs when discussing math, statistics, data analysis, and modelling. I've spent years in such consultation, not hours.

*Your* comfort in knowing what you're talking about isn't the issue. Making other people comfortable that you know what you are talking about isn't even the issue - that's still more appeal to authority. You might, instead, work on demonstrating correctness, rather than building up personal credentials.

You know, it's kinda funny that I'm being jumped on for a (false) appeal to authority when that response was directly to an ad hom about me being unqualified to make the argument I did make. You didn't blink about the ad hom, but here you are lecturing that I can't cite my relevant work and education history in response to an ad hom about my lack of such. I spent many paragraphs over many posts explaining my position, and one talking about my educational and work background. You've decided to ignore all of the work I have done in favor of the easy way out that crying 'fallacy!' gives to ignore everything else and chastise me on breaching a rhetorical rule of which you have an imperfect grasp. Argumentum ad fallacy seems to be a favorite of yours.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hopefully I've taught you yet another useful thing.

Thanks, I'm learning quite a lot from you, here.

Yes.
Actually, you're wrong. I've never claimed to be a social scientist. You suggested that I was, and I said that you're making assumptions.

Ah, again, thank you for the education. I shall henceforth assume that you are no one, with no relevant information on any issue, until you directly inform me otherwise.

No, no, no. I do not have to educate you. I choose to do so out of the kindness of my own heart. I've provided you with useful information, free of charge. You should be grateful.

So, then, no answer to the question? Excellent, we can drop this line of argument and move on. Thank you, again, for the education, and for ceding the argument to me despite my previously undereducated status. Very kind (as you note).

 

[Cor Azer]

Businessmen are in the business of making money. If their "assumption" was wrong, someone would have noticed it and published articles and such saying, "Hey guys, the way to make money really is to hire people with sloppy resumes". Then it would have caught on that not hiring people with sloppy resumes doesn't actually make you more money. That hasn't happened and there is a very good reason for it. They aren't wrong. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are not common enough to make it worth the risk.

Nobody is saying sloppy resumes lead to productivity. What we're saying is:
1. that a few typos on a resume doesn't automatically mean sloppy, and
2. there's no evidence that a sloppy resume means sloppy work habits.

Yes, it is usually true that people who are careful and detailed-oriented on their resumes are careful and detail-oriented in their work habits (although hardly universally true). Even allowing if it was universally true though, you can't assume the inverse (People who are not careful and detail-oriented on their resumes are not careful and detail-oriented in their work habits) is true; it would have to be proved separately.

Honest answer. I'd call that person in for an interview and if they were the best person for the job, he or she would get it. I wouldn't like the name, but I'm not going to hurt a business over a personal issue. That said, if there were three equally qualified candidates who I interviewed and impressed me equally in person, and one had a name I didn't like, that one would be out.

Sounds more reasonable.

With that reasoning though, I don't understand why you'd put similar personal reasons over business interests earlier in the process?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your position, but it's come off as though you'd put extra scrutiny to winnow out resumes with your disliked names.

You seem to be an 'ends-justify-the-means' person, which risks getting burned because the law around employment practices is decidedly not from that point-of-view. The 'means', so to speak, is very important, not just the 'ends'.

Nothing, because I wouldn't know. She didn't file suit and all you've given me is a callback by me for the second resume.

Did she come in for the interview the second time? I need more to go on.

Ah yes, I guess I did leave the resulting scenario for inference accidentally.

My intention was to note that even if she didn't come in for the callback, she and her lawyer would now have evidence showing undue discriminatory behaviour on your part (so long as they were able to show that demographically, the disliked name occurred more frequently in one or more racial group than others), which would make a case against you much stronger.

I guess my question is: why risk such a case over a person's name?

 

[Umbran]

Okay, I must have misread you. I'm glad we're in agreement that statistics will lie to you.

Not quite. Statistics cannot lie. Statistics are the results of mathematical manipulation, are not sentient, and cannot make statements, much less knowingly false ones.

Humans, however, can misinterpret statistics, and draw inaccurate conclusions from them, and do so fairly often.

It's not an appeal to authority. It would be that if I referenced the authority and used that as my argument. "A PhD says that you're wrong!" Instead, I referenced my experiences when they were questioned as to how I came to my conclusions. I was speaking to my experience, not substituting an authority for my argument.

Except your experience is not relevant. He questioned your understanding of measurement, and rather than answer with mathematics about measurement, you responded with assertions of expertise - which is appeal to authority.

You know, it's kinda funny that I'm being jumped on for a (false) appeal to authority when that response was directly to an ad hom about me being unqualified to make the argument I did make.

Nothing funny about it. This is informal debate. There's no expectation that I dissect the logical flaws of *all* arguments made in the thread. I am allowed to pick and choose.

You didn't blink about the ad hom, but here you are lecturing that I can't cite my relevant work and education history in response to an ad hom about my lack of such.

I didn't say you can't cite it. You're *allowed* - there's no cop coming to give you a ticket, or anything. I just said it doesn't support your position to do so.

Quite frankly, you probably shouldn't have engaged with the ad hominem at all, other than perhaps noting its invalidity.

You've decided to ignore all of the work I have done

Because it is at best anecdotal, and at worst irrelevant.

in favor of the easy way out that crying 'fallacy!' gives to ignore everything else

What "everything else"? You made some assertions, worded as absolute truth. They were questioned - and at that point the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. The only proof you have given is anecdotal and claims of expertise. You claim to know about data and statistics, so you already know that anecdote and expertise are not strong support, and that we should ignore them.

If, back when you were challenged, you'd said, "Well, that's what I think, anyway," or otherwise related that it was a personal opinion, this probably would have blown over - someone may have voiced an opposing opinion, but it would have been opinion vs opinion, and that usually isn't that interesting a discussion, and would probably die down quickly.

 

[billd91]

For those examples to be accurate ones, the following would also have to be true.

1) No CEO ever sold personal computers, because that would be a change to how things are done.

2) We still have only New Coke, because no one admitted to it being a mistake and changed it back.

3) Virtually every company had to have made Pintos and done the same thing.

4) Virtually every company has to use rotating shift scheduling.

None of the above is true. Innovators figure out new ways to do things and cause change. Someone would have figured out long ago that sloppy work habits with a resume don't usually mean sloppy work habits in general if it wasn't true. It then would have caught on with a great many businesses. Not all for sure, but with a large number. We would have a situation like the rotating shift. Many would do it and many would not.

No, your additions would not have to be true at all. That would require the addition of potentially self-destructive stubbornness - for 30 years now in the case of Coca-Cola. You're trying to require Dannyalcatraz's examples to be stronger than they need to be to make his point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not quite. Statistics cannot lie. Statistics are the results of mathematical manipulation, are not sentient, and cannot make statements, much less knowingly false ones.

Humans, however, can misinterpret statistics, and draw inaccurate conclusions from them, and do so fairly often.



Except your experience is not relevant. He questioned your understanding of measurement, and rather than answer with mathematics about measurement, you responded with assertions of expertise - which is appeal to authority.



Nothing funny about it. This is informal debate. There's no expectation that I dissect the logical flaws of *all* arguments made in the thread. I am allowed to pick and choose.



I didn't say you can't cite it. You're *allowed* - there's no cop coming to give you a ticket, or anything. I just said it doesn't support your position to do so.

Quite frankly, you probably shouldn't have engaged with the ad hominem at all, other than perhaps noting its invalidity.



Because it is at best anecdotal, and at worst irrelevant.



What "everything else"? You made some assertions, worded as absolute truth. They were questioned - and at that point the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. The only proof you have given is anecdotal and claims of expertise. You claim to know about data and statistics, so you already know that anecdote and expertise are not strong support, and that we should ignore them.

If, back when you were challenged, you'd said, "Well, that's what I think, anyway," or otherwise related that it was a personal opinion, this probably would have blown over - someone may have voiced an opposing opinion, but it would have been opinion vs opinion, and that usually isn't that interesting a discussion, and would probably die down quickly.

Yet you've agreed with my underlying premise that statistics often are used improperly and often lead to assuming truth when none is present -- you've only quibbled on the construction (statistics lie, vs people using statistics lie to themselves). Obviously, I've constructed a valid enough argument that you agree with it.

And, again, for the appeal, citing my relevant work and educational history is directly applicable to the charge that I don't understand measurement. You're insisting that the only proper response to that is a treatise on measurement, showing that I do, in fact, meet some nebulous requirement that I understand measurement. In any rational conversation, ie, one where argumentum ad fallacy is not present, the listing of my relevant knowledge and it's sources is directly relevant and not an appeal to authority. Else, any claim to knowledge with a pedigree to show worth is an appeal to authority, and that renders the fallacy useless as it's always violated by any mention of sources. Had I merely said that I have a degree in stats, which would imply association with subject matter experts at the PhD level, you would not have leveled the charge (or would have looked silly doing so). Instead, since I do not have such a degree, but a degree that required multiple courses in calculus based statistical analysis, have work history at the national level dealing with the measurement of both physical and subjective things, and have consulted directly with top SMEs on measurement theory, you choose to say that the last is nothing but an appeal to authority and ignore the remaining qualifications that I have. I didn't say I was right because I had consulted with SMEs, I listed it as further proof that I have a long grounding in the subject matter. That, again, is not an appeal to authority, because I never appealed to the authority as proof that my claims were correct -- I listed the authority as part of my extensive background in the subject matter to refute a direct accusation that I have no such grounding.

 

[Kramodlog]

Boy, we sure are far from the original subject of privilege.

 

[Cor Azer]

Boy, we sure are far from the original subject of privilege.

Them darned players jumped off the DM's railroad agin!