Simpler Question to Avoid PrayingMantis's Wrath

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, it might look strange to most of you, but I know very very little about the specifics of OJ trial,…

[/ QUOTE ] No, doesn’t look strange, but from the next quote, can I assume you are not from the U.S (or maybe too young to remember - you seem old enough) ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not from the U.S.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now why the need to introduce that new variable R, which here is "white", into the question/argument? Couldn't you ask it without the R? Does it serve to confuse the readers, by giving them a piece of "irrlevant information", that is, an information that is not relevant to the core point you're trying to make here, or does it have anything to do with the question?

[/ QUOTE ] The word “white” is relevant. Most white people think OJ should have been found guilty (he was found not guilty). We tend to think that the evidence points in that direction. Most (at least many and a far higher % than white folk) black people think he was not guilty (There might be bias on their part or perhaps don't care that he "got off" and were happy he was found not guilty. One cannot assume that they didn't follow the logical train if we included black doctor...).

Therefore the white doctors who think he is innocent is akin to saying they just don’t follow logical trains of thought - the evidence logically points to guilty (is the assumption here).

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not seem to explain the use of "white" in his question/argument at all, and I suspect David would agree with me. Of course I am aware to the black/white issue with regard to OJ trial, but still, it has nothing to do with the point David is trying to make.

Think for instance about your last sentence here:

"Therefore the white doctors who think he is innocent is akin to saying they just don’t follow logical trains of thought - the evidence logically points to guilty (is the assumption here)."

Why can't you say "doctors" instead of "which doctors", and the point still being exactly the same? (unless, of course, you have a hidden assumption/argument with regard to the differences in logical processing ability between white and black people, and this is clearly not what David is getting at). By saying "white doctors" you make the question/argument more "complex" with no apparent reason.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This does not seem to explain the use of "white" in his question/argument at all, and I suspect David would agree with me. Of course I am aware to the black/white issue with regard to OJ trial, but still, it has nothing to do with the point David is trying to make.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. I assume DS was just trying to avoid a heap of incorrect posts about it depending on the race of the doctor.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also it's not what is believed that matters most, but why they believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand “why they believe” to mean “how they come to believe”.

If the following is true (David admits to hyperbole for those who did not read the original thread):

Kbfc writes:

[ QUOTE ]
"It takes a certain amount of logical strength to recognize when a psychological drive is affecting the way you address a position."

[/ QUOTE ]

David S. writes regarding kbfc's post:

[ QUOTE ]
That is the most important sentence EVER written on this forum. Maybe ever written ANYWHERE. Which is why anyone who offers their take on any subject (that is not mainly a matter of opinion) that is controversial and emotionally charged, should basically be ignored if they are not well educated and/ or talented in logic/probability type concepts and puzzles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I nominate chez’s quote to be the 2nd most important sentence written on this forum (as far as the religion threads). Not sure whether I would admit to hyperbole or not. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, thank you.

maybe too obvious to deserve such an acolade?

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also it's not what is believed that matters most, but why they believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand “why they believe” to mean “how they come to believe”.

If the following is true (David admits to hyperbole for those who did not read the original thread):

Kbfc writes:

[ QUOTE ]
"It takes a certain amount of logical strength to recognize when a psychological drive is affecting the way you address a position."

[/ QUOTE ]

David S. writes regarding kbfc's post:

[ QUOTE ]
That is the most important sentence EVER written on this forum. Maybe ever written ANYWHERE. Which is why anyone who offers their take on any subject (that is not mainly a matter of opinion) that is controversial and emotionally charged, should basically be ignored if they are not well educated and/ or talented in logic/probability type concepts and puzzles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I nominate chez’s quote to be the 2nd most important sentence written on this forum (as far as the religion threads). Not sure whether I would admit to hyperbole or not. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, thank you.

maybe too obvious to deserve such an acolade?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

chez,

I think both statements are obvious. I was merely using David's decree that the former statement was 1st for my metric.

RJT

p.s. Evidently your post isn't so obvious, thus all the discourse.

[RJT]

I think I did not explain myself well. I am in a bit of rush. I will try later or perhaps someone else can if I am correct.

[RJT]

I thought is would be ok to hijack this thread a moment - or at least go off on a tangent The replies seem to be finished anyway.

I thought it might be interesting to see how our words can mean different things to different listeners.


PrayingMantis,

I think you are correct when you say use of the word “white” is superfluous. Perhaps, because you were not part of the cultural phenomenon it was more obvious to you than us. Perhaps it was solely based on the wording and you simply caught it. You even wondered if it was inserted to confuse the reader. The rest of us read it unnoticed.

Let me explain how David meant it and how the rest of us (white folk) read it. (At least how I assume he meant it and how I read it.)

I think the reason he said that is because the numbers look like the following.

The following numbers are not real, but somewhat reflect what most of us white folk assume. It is, I think, how David was thinking when he posed the question.

First we are to assume that any objective observer who followed the evidence must logically conclude that OJ is guilty. From there we find:

90% white folk came to the right conclusion (guilty) through good logic.
8% white folk came to the wrong conclusion (not guilty) through bad logic.
2% white folk came to the wrong conclusion (1% not guilty or 1% guilty) though bias - did not look at the evidence.

5% black folk came to the right (guilty) conclusion through good logic.
5% black folk came to the wrong conclusion (not guilty) through bad logic.
90% black folk came to the wrong conclusion through bias (89% not guilty-1% guilty) - did not look at the evidence.

Should it matter if one concludes wrong based on bias or bad logic? That is for David to answer, he posed the question Because so many black folk are wrong because of bias and rather then bad logic, I think David simply omitted them from the question.*

Because the numbers look the way they do, he used the term “white doctors” to mean those who looked at the evidence without bias. If they thought he was not guilty then they are idiots and not to be trusted as doctors.

RJT

*I also think David “forgives” us when we are wrong because of bias alone, but never for bad logic.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Are white doctors who believe OJ is innocent, on average worse doctors (not including bedside manner) than white doctors who think he was guilty?

[/ QUOTE ]

That reminds me. I can't believe Bush nominated Alito for the Supreme Court, especially after he screwed up that OJ Trial!

[tolbiny]

Doesn't your basic assumption (underlying in this thread about orthodox religion and doctors ability/competancy) imply that there are no benefits to being a strong believer for a doctor? What if a firm belief in a higher power allowed a doctor a sense of comfort when he lost a patient which allowed for better sleep (damn important in his profession) as well as lower stress levels. Further along a stongly atheistic doc could end up so arrogant about his abilities and being the one whose abilities are deciding life and death would end up being more obstanite about his position, making a second opinion/ new evidence harder to obtain.

[Borodog]

I just ordered new counter tops made of obstanite.

[tolbiny]

yeah yeah yeah, want to put some effor t forth? I'm asking a serious question about the value of religion in David's eyes.