Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When is Data not Data?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When Orthomyxo says so of course. In a recent exchange I asserted that COVID-19 deaths may be overstated. Orthomyxo got red in the face, stamped his rhetorical feet, and petulantly insisted that no COVID-19 numbers are without the slightest doubt understated. There is strong evidence, however, that they are overstated, and when he asked me for data to support that claim, I gave him data in the form of this statement from the scientific advisor to the Italian Minister of Health: “On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three.”

His response: “TO ME, that is not data.” Orthomyxo is so arrogant and consumed by confirmation bias, that he has arrogated unto himself the authority arbitrarily to expel from the category “data” anything that does not support his thesis.

His antics are not unique of course. For example, many times a materialist has come into these pages and announced there is no “evidence” for the existence of God. He is then shown multiple strands of evidence for the existence of God. I can’t tell you how many times the response has been: “That is not evidence.”

For Ortho, like the village atheist, evidence that does not persuade him is not “evidence that does not persuade me.” It is no evidence at all. It is really quite astonishing that a man who is by all appearances reasonably intelligent should have such a blinkered, almost adolescent, view of epistemology.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too hard on him. The best of us routinely succumb to confirmation bias. It’s just that he seems to have an especially nasty strain of that bug. Also, the problem is exacerbated by the arrogant certainty with which he asserts his views and dismisses any view to the contrary.

Comments
Why are you like this? Anyone that wants to can go read your posts in the original thread: https://uncommondescent.com/medicine/oh-about-that-flawed-fda-covid-19-test-it-may-have-been-contaminated-with-the-virus/#comment-699384 In #13 you say we can be certain that the number of deaths reported by various countries is overstated if Italy's Minister of Health is to be believed. I recongoinsed the factoid, and told you it was from early in the epidemic, not from the minister and not supported by data. You produce the above statement (from early in the epidemic, not from the minister and containing only the summary statistic). Maybe you only saw the quoted section, because you didn't link the the Telegraph article that in the very next line makes it clear the statement doesn't support your claim that those with co-morbidities are "dying with" not of the virus (an idea tha its abusrd once you see the excess mortality in Italy). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/have-many-coronavirus-patients-died-italy/ Now you want to pull out the comment an raise it to its own post because you want to quibble on the whether the advisors summary statement amounts to seeing any data. Just for the record, when a scientist hears a summer stat like "88% of deaths have a comorbidity" we want to see some data to support that, and to understand what those comorbidities are an how common they ar in the general population. In this case that never came about, and a statement that the ministry looked back at their records doesn't get close to this. I appreciate that this is a stressful time for everyone, but I really can't understand why you have to take on this adveserial mode and all the bombast and silliness you bring to it.orthomyxo
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
@3 Chuckdarwin Only an insane person would use their intellect to show that their intellect can not be trusted. Oh, wait, evo/ materialism in a nutshell. ___ Kairosfocus:
For instance, if you reject observations as poor or no evidence, any empirical investigation depends on same even, observation of collected data and steps of an argument etc.
Let them chew on this. And hope their neurons won't start to burn.Truthfreedom
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
CD, actually the issue is epistemological and logical, tied into metaphysics with a side helping of ontology [aka logic of being . . . try. Math is the study of the logic of structure and quantity.] Here is Locke:
[Essay on Human Understanding, Intro, Sec 5:] Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
He spoke to general hyperskepticism but a fortiori it applies to selective forms. Including the latest species seen in the wild, the fallacy of the incoherent gold standard of evidence or evidentiary process etc. For instance, if you reject observations as poor or no evidence, any empirical investigation depends on same, even, observation of collected data and steps of an argument etc. And non empirical cases rely on inner observations of state or concept etc. Self-referential incoherence. KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Only in the world of intelligent design could an argument over epidemiological data degenerate into an argument on the existence of God. Give it a rest..chuckdarwin
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
@Barry Arrington:
For example, many times a materialist has come into these pages and announced there is no “evidence” for the existence of God. He is then shown multiple strands of evidence for the existence of God. I can’t tell you how many times the response has been: “That is not evidence.”
Mhhmm. Materialists are pathetic. Daddy Darwin the-man-who-collected-barnacles-and-married-his-first-cousin wrote that 'monkey minds should not be trusted regarding God issues' ("Darwin's Horrid Doubt'').
"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" C. Darwin (the barnacle collector)
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/darwins_horrid/ Yes, atheists, we can trust our human mind when it tells us that we can not trust it . Another statement of self-refutation and non-senseTruthfreedom
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Take the First Law of Thermodynamics: "Absent Divine Intervention, energy is never created nor destroyed." The phrase "absent Divine Intervention" is required, because....... without it the law has been falsified by a wide body of unrefuted empirical evidence* that has been judged credible by billions of people. Anyone disagree? *(e.g. Mathew 14: 13-21)TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply