Satisfying LA Times Op-Ed Piece

[RJT]

Quote from the text of the study:

“This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.”

I think I’ll wait for the sequel to come out.

All kidding aside, I haven’t read it all yet. Probably won’t have time until later. If I see anything of note, I’ll post. In the meantime, we’ll see what others think.

Thanks for the link, Morph.

RJT

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a different note would you mind explaining the reasons for your name choice? I'm writing a PhD in complex analysis so obviously I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your choice of:

a)"The shortest route between two truths in the real domain passes through the complex domain." - Hadamard, so often quoted before proving the prime number theorem.

b)It turns out that my only singularities are isolated poles.

c)It sounds cool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice.

The proof of the PNT and the topics surrounding that certain famous meromorphic function is what got me interested in complex analysis in the first place.

I'm sure you've heard the following joke.

Q: Why should a complex analyst's dog be named Cauchy?
A: Because he'll leave residues around poles.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you've heard the following joke.

Q: Why should a complex analyst's dog be named Cauchy?
A: Because he'll leave residues around poles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, as I'm sure you've heard:

Q: What's the contour integral around Western Europe?
A: Zero, because all the Poles are in Eastern Europe!

Ah, math humor. *grin*

Edit: Addendum:

For a little while as an undergraduate, my answering machine message was:

"The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."

Oy. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]

"The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."


[/ QUOTE ]

I love it. Wish I'd thought of it.

I am about to move to a new job the end of this month. That sounds like an ideal message to leave on my voice mail when I go.

(And yes, I took graduate courses in real and complex analysis, even though they weren't required for a statistics degree.)

[purnell]

All this thing does is provide evidence that assuming that if a society rejects religion, all hell beaks loose is wrong (as in incorrect).

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you've heard the following joke.

Q: Why should a complex analyst's dog be named Cauchy?
A: Because he'll leave residues around poles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, as I'm sure you've heard:

Q: What's the contour integral around Western Europe?
A: Zero, because all the Poles are in Eastern Europe!

Ah, math humor. *grin*

Edit: Addendum:

For a little while as an undergraduate, my answering machine message was:

"The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."

Oy. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The first I've heard and love, the second is new and I really love it.

[ QUOTE ]
Does anybody here really believe the higher crime is caused by greater religious belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[NotReady]

I looked through the orginal article you linked in another post. I couldn't find any definition of religiosity. Untill he does that we aren't really talking about anything.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked through the orginal article you linked in another post. I couldn't find any definition of religiosity. Untill he does that we aren't really talking about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

"In broad terms the hypothesis that popular religiosity is socially beneficial holds that high rates of belief in a creator, as well as worship, prayer and other aspects of religious practice, correlate with lowering rates of lethal violence, suicide, non-monogamous sexual activity, and abortion, as well as improved physical health. Such faith-based, virtuous “cultures of life” are supposedly attainable if people believe that God created them for a special purpose, and follow the strict moral dictates imposed by religion. At one end of the spectrum are those who consider creator belief helpful but not necessarily critical to individuals and societies. At the other end the most ardent advocates consider persons and people inherently unruly and ungovernable unless they are strictly obedient to the creator (as per Barna; Colson and Pearcey; Johnson; Pearcey; Schroeder)."

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

I looked through the orginal article you linked in another post. I couldn't find any definition of religiosity. Untill he does that we aren't really talking about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike legal papers most definitions in other fields are contained in the context rather than a "is" = "what I want it to" format. This paper seems gorged with contextual definitions of religousity, too many for my liking. Here's one of many -

"The plots include Bible literalism and frequency of prayer and service attendance, as well as absolute belief in a creator, in order to examine religiosity in terms of ardency, conservatism, and activities."

hope that helps, luckyme