Simpson’s paradox is a simple mathematical explanation for the error, “political correctness” is a complex socially-constructed one intimately tied up with particular political positions. Occam’s Razor favors the former, overwhelmingly so.
There is no need to introduce the hypothesis that the error is due to people not agreeing with the particular political views of the Blue Party (which is what the “political correctness” hypothesis states), when simple math suffices to explain it.
There is no need to introduce the hypothesis that the error is due to people not agreeing with the particular political views of the Blue Party (which is what the “political correctness” hypothesis states), when simple math suffices to explain it.
If the Blue Party has the belief that it’s evil to ever think that any non-white racial group is on average worse at anything than white people are and if this belief is one of the most important beliefs of the Blue Party then what there is no need to introduce here is Simpson’s paradox.
Steve Landsburg (like myself) is a college professor. The President of his university recently attacked Landsburg on politically correctness grounds. Landsburg’s post was an implicit attack on blank slate politically correctness.
Yes, I understand that you’re saying that all Blues hate the truth; that Blues are the opposite of decent people — that they speak lies out of love of deceit; their veins run with corrosive black ichor; they despise all that is good and natural in the world; they invert the ritual of the Mass and perform lewd acts with the consecrated Host; their women dress as men and their men dress as women; they curse crops, cause milk to sour, and make men’s penises shrink and vanish. And that only the sacred, knightly courage of the Greens can exterminate the Blue threat, make the land prosperous once again, bring smiles to the faces of the children, and lead us marching joyously into a new age of shining order and righteousness.
I get that. That was all obvious when you said “political correctness”, because that’s what “political correctness” means — it is an accusation of bad faith. It means “the other side tell lies, and they refuse to allow the truth to be spoken.”
What I’m asking you to recognize is that this is a more complicated hypothesis than the Simpson’s paradox hypothesis. Politics will pretty much always be more complicated than math, and conspiracy theories always more complicated than mathematical errors. And so they require more evidence.
“Greedy reductionism” implies explaining-away the data on the basis of a reductionist theory; e.g. Skinner’s explaining-away of the experience of consciousness.
The only thing being explained away here is the “political correctness” explanation, not the data.
Also the two explanations aren’t mutually exclusive.
Conditioning on one of two independently sufficient causes detracts from the other’s plausibility.
Simpson’s paradox is a simple mathematical explanation for the error, “political correctness” is a complex socially-constructed one intimately tied up with particular political positions. Occam’s Razor favors the former, overwhelmingly so.
There is no need to introduce the hypothesis that the error is due to people not agreeing with the particular political views of the Blue Party (which is what the “political correctness” hypothesis states), when simple math suffices to explain it.
If the Blue Party has the belief that it’s evil to ever think that any non-white racial group is on average worse at anything than white people are and if this belief is one of the most important beliefs of the Blue Party then what there is no need to introduce here is Simpson’s paradox.
Steve Landsburg (like myself) is a college professor. The President of his university recently attacked Landsburg on politically correctness grounds. Landsburg’s post was an implicit attack on blank slate politically correctness.
Yes, I understand that you’re saying that all Blues hate the truth; that Blues are the opposite of decent people — that they speak lies out of love of deceit; their veins run with corrosive black ichor; they despise all that is good and natural in the world; they invert the ritual of the Mass and perform lewd acts with the consecrated Host; their women dress as men and their men dress as women; they curse crops, cause milk to sour, and make men’s penises shrink and vanish. And that only the sacred, knightly courage of the Greens can exterminate the Blue threat, make the land prosperous once again, bring smiles to the faces of the children, and lead us marching joyously into a new age of shining order and righteousness.
I get that. That was all obvious when you said “political correctness”, because that’s what “political correctness” means — it is an accusation of bad faith. It means “the other side tell lies, and they refuse to allow the truth to be spoken.”
What I’m asking you to recognize is that this is a more complicated hypothesis than the Simpson’s paradox hypothesis. Politics will pretty much always be more complicated than math, and conspiracy theories always more complicated than mathematical errors. And so they require more evidence.
That’s all.
NO!
I’m not saying that the Blues hate the truth. I’m saying that on one small set of issues the Blues have beliefs independent of the truth.
Yes, but in this situation, a situation over which I have a huge amount of local knowledge, politics is the simpler answer.
Greedy reductionism strikes again. Also the two explanations aren’t mutually exclusive.
“Greedy reductionism” implies explaining-away the data on the basis of a reductionist theory; e.g. Skinner’s explaining-away of the experience of consciousness.
The only thing being explained away here is the “political correctness” explanation, not the data.
Conditioning on one of two independently sufficient causes detracts from the other’s plausibility.