The coefficient of correlation between A and B is the same as the coefficient of correlation between B and A, so this is false.
No, it’s not false. The vast majority of intelligent people—educated, knowledgeable people—were once theists of one sort of another. The fact that significantly more of them were atheistic/antitheistic than the general population does not change that choosing one at random was still grossly unlikely to produce an AT/AnT.
If you continue to apply a mathematical model that is not being referenced in this context by my use of language, I’m going to become annoyed with you.
The vast majority of intelligent people—educated, knowledgeable people—were once theists of one sort of another. The fact that significantly more of them were atheistic/antitheistic than the general population does not change that choosing one at random was still grossly unlikely to produce an AT/AnT.
So, in other words, you mean precisely what Cyan and I had assumed you meant, but you refuse to acknowledge that the word “correlation” has an unambiguous and universal meaning that differs greatly from your usage of it; if you persist in this, you will misinterpret correlation to mean implication where it does not.
For example, smoking is correlated with lung cancer, but a randomly chosen smoker probably does not have lung cancer.
I don’t know what else to say on this topic, other than that this is not a case of you being contrarian: you are simply wrong, and you should do yourself the favor of admitting it.
ETA: I’m going to leave this thread now, as the delicious irony of catching Annoyance in a tangential error is not a worthy feeling for a rationalist to pursue.
you refuse to acknowledge that the word “correlation” has an unambiguous and universal meaning
It’s not universal. The general language use has a meaning that isn’t the same as the statistical. That domain-specific definition does not apply outside statistics.
No, it’s not false. The vast majority of intelligent people—educated, knowledgeable people—were once theists of one sort of another. The fact that significantly more of them were atheistic/antitheistic than the general population does not change that choosing one at random was still grossly unlikely to produce an AT/AnT.
If you continue to apply a mathematical model that is not being referenced in this context by my use of language, I’m going to become annoyed with you.
So, in other words, you mean precisely what Cyan and I had assumed you meant, but you refuse to acknowledge that the word “correlation” has an unambiguous and universal meaning that differs greatly from your usage of it; if you persist in this, you will misinterpret correlation to mean implication where it does not.
For example, smoking is correlated with lung cancer, but a randomly chosen smoker probably does not have lung cancer.
I don’t know what else to say on this topic, other than that this is not a case of you being contrarian: you are simply wrong, and you should do yourself the favor of admitting it.
ETA: I’m going to leave this thread now, as the delicious irony of catching Annoyance in a tangential error is not a worthy feeling for a rationalist to pursue.
It’s not universal. The general language use has a meaning that isn’t the same as the statistical. That domain-specific definition does not apply outside statistics.
You are simply wrong.