Guns Don't Kill People, Vaccines Do.

First, it is important that you understand that this article is not pro or anti guns or vaccines.  It is an analysis of the similarities between the positions in each debate, and why it is impossible for anyone to win either argument.

To sum up the arguments of each side (in the simplest terms possible), I have made the following graphic:

The 'anti' arguments of both debates are basically the same.  They use hard facts of something that is really happening right now to argue their point.  They then embellish those facts with some scary data that is possibly true.

The 'pro' side of each argument has to acknowledge that at least the hard facts are true - people are being killed.  But they counter with a catastrophic historical event that they hope is being prevented from happening again in the future.  The argument is that the comparatively small tragedy from year to year is justified by the prevention of a exponentially greater tragedy.  These catastrophes cost so many lives that it would take thousands of years to reach a break even point with just one, let alone all of the catastrophes that have occurred in just the last century.

These are some shocking numbers.  Numerically speaking, they blow the 'anti' arguments out of the water.  But there is just one problem: they are purely hypothetical.  We don't know the future.  The fact that none of these things are currently occurring in the U.S. makes it even less convincing.  Which results in an argument like this:

And around and around they go.

There is no resolution to this argument.  People pick and defend their sides based on completely different methods of reasoning, each of which has its merits and flaws.  I have picked my side, and I believe it has more merit than the other side.  But I understand that the other side feels the same way.  There is probably not a meme or blog post out there that will convince anyone to switch sides.  All of the arguing only cements people stronger in their position as they look for reasons to justify themselves. 

It would be depressing if we didn't get to feel superior to the people that are too dumb to agree with our side of things.

Starring Newton Knight as Himself

Whenever I see a new movie coming out that is based on a true story, I like to go look up the real history behind it.  I just saw the preview to The Free State of Jones, starring Matthew McConaughey. It is based on the life of Newton Knight, who helped Jones County, Mississippi secede from the Confederacy during the Civil War.

I quickly googled Knight and read a couple articles about him.  His life is surrounded by a lot of controversy.  Some think he was a villain, other hail him as a hero.  In any case, it is an intriguing story.  

The movie looks like it will be exciting, and I look forward to watching it.  I think Hollywood is going to embellish the story a lot, based on what I saw in the preview.  I'm not an expert on Newton Knight, and I haven't seen the movie, so it is too early to judge, though.

There is one point that I can already say they have almost 100% historical accuracy.  It was the first thing that jumped out at me when I looked up the biography of Newton Knight.  Check out a still from the preview (McConaughey) side by side with an actual picture of Knight. 

Yep.  Nailed it.

"Studying journalism" ranked alongside "Dropping out of high school" as a leading cause of not understanding science.

Here is a whopper of irresponsibly ignorant journalism:

Cured and processed meats DO NOT rank alongside smoking for causing cancer.

Cured and Processed meats ARE NOT among the TOP 5 most carcinogenic substances.

The World Health Organization has classified cured and processed meats as Class 1 carcinogens.  Sounds scary, right?  Here's how that works: If there is enough evidence to conclude that a substance can cause cancer in humans, it is a class 1 carcinogen.  The "Class 1" refers to the strength of the evidence, not the danger of cancer.  That is where the reporter went wrong.

Cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos, and arsenic are all class 1 carcinogens, and the reporter assumed that the meat must be just as bad.  But eating 5 ounces of processed meat every day of your life will increase your chance of getting colorectal cancer by 18%. Smoking every day increases your chance of cancer by as much as 2,000%.   It took me 90 seconds of research to get accurate facts.  It took some poor journalist 4 years of college to get this entire article wrong.

And lest you think I am being too hard on the reporter, consider this quote (taken from her own article!):

Prof Ian Johnson, emeritus fellow at the Institute of Food Research, also said the effect was small. “It is certainly very inappropriate to suggest that any adverse effect of bacon and sausages on the risk of bowel cancer is comparable to the dangers of tobacco smoke, which is loaded with known chemical carcinogens and increases the risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers by around twentyfold.” (emphasis added)

If the news agency had just done the research of reading their own article, they could have avoided writing such a blatantly false headline.  Which leaves me to ask, "Was it an outright lie, or just gross negligence?"  

The answer: "Both. It's called journalism."  

Is New Study on Altruism All True-istic?

Atheists across social media have joyfully been sharing this story:

It definitely evokes a reaction...    

For the nonreligious, it is cause to gloat over their latest victory .

Churchgoers are crying foul, meanwhile.

God-fearing bloggers are scrambling to discredit the study with stories like this:

Their rebuttal hinges on the fact that the original study was heavily skewed with Muslims, ignoring that the researchers broke it down by religion and showed that the Christian children in the story were also less giving than the atheist children.  (But everyone that watched the famous Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate already knew not to expect strong debate skills from conservative Christians in the media.)

I can't blame the journalists entirely for this headline, for once.  The researchers spoon-fed their biased interpretation of the study to anyone reading their report.  The first thing that caught my attention (and made me suspicious of a biased approach) was this line from the summary:

"Together these results reveal ... how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior."

And this line, from the results:

"...the religious rearing environment fundamentally shaped how their altruism was expressed."

 Both of these statements imply a causal relationship, i.e. - being religious causes a person to be less giving.  All scientists know that causality is extremely difficult to prove.  A study like this only shows correlation, i.e. - religion and altruism are related somehow.

I am always on the hunt to expose correlations that are masquerading as causation, so I dove into reading the actual study instead of just news reports about the study.  The researchers spend a lot of time discussing the significance of religion in predicting how giving a child will be.  They have this nice graph that shows how Christian and Muslim children are both less charitable than secular children:

Figure 1, Decety et al., The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World, Current Biology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.056

What caught my attention was where the children came from, however.  The study recruited children aged 5-12 from six different countries.  The numbers are given in the following table from the study.

Decety et al., The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World, Current Biology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.056

The researchers do not give a breakdown of which religions came from which countries, but it does not take a genius to figure out that Jordan and Turkey are supplying most of the Muslim participants.  Each of those nations is over 90% Muslim.  It is likely that most of the atheist children are from China, Canada, and the U.S.  China is over 50% non-religious, while Toronto and Chicago (the cities in the study) have non-religious rates of 21% and 40%, respectively.

Since the study does not provide this information, I am left to formulate my best guess at where the children came from.  Using the demographics of each country, I developed the following chart.  It's not exact, but I'm sure it gives us the general picture of things.

You'll notice three things about the people in this study:

• Most of the atheists are coming from China, Canada, and the U.S.  
• Half of the Christians are coming from South Africa, with the rest from Canada and the U.S.
• The vast majority of Muslims are from Jordan and Turkey.

The authors make no mention of collecting equal proportions of each religion from each country, nor do they make any mention of correcting for country or socioeconomic status.  So we must ask the questions: Does the country a person is raised in affect their altruism?  Does the socioeconomic status of a person affect their altruism?

The researchers provide us with answers to both of those questions.  I'm not going to get into statistics, but there is a number known as a "βstandardized" that tells you how predictive a characteristic can be.  The higher the number, the better you can predict things based on that characteristic.  Here are the top four predictors found in the study: (The negative number on the religion just means as one goes up, the other goes down.  It is the magnitude of the number that is important.)

Age was by far the strongest predictor of whether or not a child was giving.  The older the child, the more they shared.  Socioeconomic status is a STRONGER predictor of giving than religion.  The six countries of the study have different socioeconomic factors.  Also, what country a child is from is only slightly less predictive than their religion.

I would classify this study as "Mostly Useless" until the authors provide data to show that the country and socioeconomic status of the children didn't outweigh the effects of their religion.    This is a classic case of having too many variables.  Why not do the study in one school, in one country, with children from one socioeconomic class?  I might be a little more charitable toward the authors of this study if that were the case.

A Quick Review of First Grade Math for Journalists

Here is the most recent example of journalism run amok in the field of mathematics.  The Washington Post ran this headline:

Here are the actual numbers from Chicago for  2009 - 2013:

White drivers found with contraband: 237
Black Drivers found with contraband: 1,232

For those of you that are rusty with your first grade math, 1,232 > 237.

It is true that more black drivers were searched (6,593 versus 906), and that a higher percentage of white drivers that were searched had contraband.  It is also true that the police in many places stop a disproportionate number of black and hispanic drivers, and are much quicker to search them than they are to search white drivers.  But this is not an article about racial profiling.  This is about math, and the headline is a blatant falsehood.  Police found five times as many black drivers with contraband as white drivers.

The article does make one strong point: a higher percentage of white drivers that are searched are caught with contraband.  Again, here are the numbers for 2009 - 2013:

% of white drivers searched and caught with contraband:  26%
% of black drivers searched and caught with contraband:  19%

The article misinterprets this data to make this dubious claim:

The above sentence says that if you randomly stop and search cars, you are more likely to find white drivers with contraband than black drivers with contraband. The statement and the article imply that whites are more likely to be breaking the law than blacks.  There is little evidence to support one race being more or less law abiding than the other, however.  

Here is my reasoning for a more logical (and less racist) explanation:

1. Let's assume that whites and blacks are equally likely to be breaking the law.  

2. Let's assume that there are cops that are quicker to be suspicious of a black driver than a white driver.  (This could be because of the neighborhood the stop is made in, the race of the driver, or other factors.)  Cops are more likely to search a black driver because of this bias.  This leads to searches that are not motivated by real evidence, just a biased hunch. 

3. Let's assume that cops are less suspicious of white drivers, so they need greater evidence to raise suspicion levels to the point that they would search the car.

4. A higher percentage of white drivers are caught with contraband because a higher percentage of their searches were motivated by actual evidence, not a biased hunch.

If the cops want to catch more bad guys, they should pay attention to why they search white drivers, and apply that level of justification across the board.  Then they could catch more bad guys with fewer searches.  Or at least that is what the math seems to say.

Scrolling through the news today, I came across this gem from the Daily Dot.  The title, "The Proposal to Build a Wall Between the US and Mexico has a Drone Problem" intrigued me, because I couldn't see how drones and illegal immigration were possibly related.  After reading the article, it is clear that they are only related in the mind of the seventh grader that authored it.  Today's lesson is on logical fallacies.

For the sake of time, I will only consider the first four points made by the author.  I think that will be enough for you to get the idea.  With each point I will summarize the author's argument, make the logical counterpoint to his argument, and then explain (in blue) the type of logical fallacy that was demonstrated in the article.  

Ready for some fun?  Let's go!

Point 1: Aerial drones make walls for stopping immigration obsolete.

The article begins with a report of 6 pounds of Methamphetamine being recovered from a drone that flew across from Mexico.  The second paragraph states that Trump wants to build a wall to stop illegal immigration, but that with new technology (the aforementioned drones), a wall would be useless.

Counterpoint: A drone capable of carrying six pounds of meth is not going to significantly increase illegal immigration across the border.

Unless immigrants are planning on smuggling themselves over one limb at a time.  The wall, which is intended to stop humans, would still be useful at stopping people because drones can't carry people (at least, not fully grown ones).

This is an example of a "straw man" fallacy, which is when you attack a weaker argument in order to prove a different argument false.  The author cites the difficulty of stopping drones carrying drugs in order to attack the idea that a wall can stop humans.  

Point 2: There are no rapists crossing the border from Mexico.

The second paragraph begins with the quote 

...Trump’s comments alleging that Mexicans are “rapists”...

I am immediately suspicious that something is out of context whenever I see an outrageous statement with only a single word in quotation marks. So I clicked on the link to the quote and it took me to an article with this quote:

Trump also had some thoughts on Mexicans, who, he literally said aloud, were probably rapists.
“They're rapists," he told the crowd, "and some, I assume, are good people."

Hmmm...That's a little bit better.  But that quote doesn't have any reference whatsoever.  So I did the journalists' job for them and found this transcript of Trump's speech, where we can find the entire quote in context:

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.

Trump is clearly not calling all Mexicans rapists.  He is stating that rapists (of many nationalities) are coming across the border from Mexico. The author calls this a "false claim."

Counterpoint: A quick google search of 'illegal immigrant rape' brings up articles like this, this, and this. 

It only takes one counter-example to prove the author wrong.  Google found three in 0.40 seconds. Trump was stating a truthful fact when he said that rapists were crossing the border from Mexico.

This is an example of 'circular reasoning.' The statement, 

     "While Trump’s comments alleging that Mexicans are “rapists” drew widespread criticism from Latinos and communities of color, those weren’t the only false claims..."

uses the fact that it said it is false to prove that it is false.  It offers no proof but itself.

Point 3: Trump stated that illegal immigrants were "bringing drugs" to the U.S. The author said this was false.  (Then he said it was "hardly true.")  

The author gives three statements to back this up.

A) He says "Fewer undocumented immigrants are entering the U.S."

     That's irrelevant. Unless 'fewer' means 'zero.'

B) He says "data from the Congressional Research Service shows that the majority of undocumented immigrants have no ties to drug trafficking whatsoever." 

     I read the report, and it doesn't say that anywhere. (If you find it in there, feel free to point it out)

C) He writes, "four out of five drug smuggling arrests in this country actually involved U.S. citizens."

Counterpoint: One out of five drug smuggling arrests involved non-citizens.

If 80% of drug smuggling is done by citizens, then 20% is done by aliens.  The aforementioned report from the Congressional Research Service shows that about 7% of the U.S. population is non-citizen.  That means that a 20% smuggling rate is almost three times higher than the representative population.  Trump's statement isn't 'hardly true,' it is 285% true.

Not only that, but many known drug traffickers are not charged as smugglers.  I interviewed a Border Patrol agent who explained that if they start chasing a smuggler, the first thing the smuggler does is drop the dope and run.  If the agents lose sight of the smuggler for even a couple seconds in the desert, they can't prove that it was the same person who was carrying the drugs.  Even though everyone involved knows who the smugglers are, rather than fight expensive court battles, they arrest the smuggler as illegal immigrants and charge them with undocumented entry.  That means the actual rate of drug smuggling for non-citizens is much higher than conviction rates show.

This has several logical fallacies.  'A' is a non-sequitur (Latin: it doesn't follow) fallacy.  The conclusion (illegal immigrants are not smuggling drugs) does not follow the premise (fewer immigrants are entering the U.S.).  'B' is an argument from authority fallacy.  The author hopes that by appealing to the authoritative nature of the congressional research report, the reader will accept the assertion.  'C' is...just wrong.  I'm not sure what to call this logical fallacy.  If anyone knows, please tell me.

Point 4: Trump stated that illegal immigrants were bringing "crime" to the U.S. The author said this was false.

The author writes, "the percentage of non-citizens make up a comparatively small percentage of America’s prison population."  

This leads me to ask, "Compared to what?"  And admitting that they make up any part of the prison population is admitting that Trump is right.

Counterpoint: Seriously, you don't think there are any criminals crossing the border?  Do I really need to argue this?

Fine.  Going back to that Congressional Research Service report, about 7% of all people in jail in the U.S. are non-citizens.  About 7% of the people in our country are non-citizens.  This means that the incarceration rate among non-citizens is exactly the same as for citizens.  How is that 'comparatively small'?

True, it doesn't appear to be the flood of criminals that Trump is hinting at.  But it is willfully ignorant to say Trump is wrong that criminals are crossing the border.

This is not technically a logical fallacy, because the problem is in the premise, not the reasoning.  The premise that no criminals are coming across the border is blatantly false.  You can't logically argue a false premise.