Satisfying LA Times Op-Ed Piece - Page 2

#1 10-09-2005, 05:54 PM

[ 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 · #2 10-09-2005, 06:52 PM

[ 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.)

jason_t · #3 10-10-2005, 12:04 AM

[ 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.

RJT · #4 10-09-2005, 03:55 PM

Can someone provide a link to the actual study? (I can’t even get into the LA link now, have to sign in - maybe I’ll do it later). From my experience, the media tends to portray studies like these in a way that makes good copy. As it stands now (with this news article) I would be quite embarrassed if I were a man of science with the newspaper’s use of the words “evolutionary scientist” (maybe it said evolutionary sociologist, can’t recall) linked to this fellow.

The study sounds like rubbish. It either is rubbish or a very incomplete portrayal of the man’s work. If the man’s work actually says anything, let’s take a look.

#5 10-09-2005, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone provide a link to the actual study?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

RJT · #6 10-09-2005, 04:45 PM

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

purnell · #7 10-09-2005, 07:42 PM

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

NotReady · #8 10-10-2005, 03:49 AM

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 · #9 10-10-2005, 12:38 PM

[ 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)."

NotReady · #10 10-10-2005, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

religiosity is socially beneficial holds that high rates of belief in a creator, as well as worship, prayer and other aspects of religious practice

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I missed that. Still, it's very general and would apply to a very high percentage of humanity throughout history. Does his study include Muslims? I'm not sure, but I think the crime rate, etc., is low in the Mideast, though I'm not sure how terrorism factors in. What about Hindu, Buddhist, Confucious? What about past history? What about genocidal atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? I would include Hitler as well though it's unclear that he was technically an atheist. I think we can include Sadam in there as well. I also suspect their societies were relatively crime free, in you don't include the criminality of the state.