William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

All comments from new users go into the moderation queue. Other comments that are in moderation have run afoul of the (harsh) spam filters. They will be cleared about once per day by a person I engaged to manage the blog and email.

Link O’ The Moment Do Freemasons love Pope Francis? Does the DNC love to kill?

Science of Global Warming Reduced to Raw Emotion at People’s Climate March: Updates

The Summa Contra Gentiles sequence will return next and not this week as announced last week. Why? Because I forgot the zombies were going to take to the streets—again. Like last week, this post will remain on top through tomorrow (new post Monday). Stay tuned for updates.

Stream: Raw Emotion, Not Science, on Display at People’s Climate March

…and the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Madness. Last week came March for Science spokesmodel Bill Nye and his perversions passing for “science”, and now comes shifty George Soros with his tens of millions injected into the populace to stir up heated feelings of “science”.

We resist, they say. We build, they claim. We rise, they threaten.

These declarations are from the homepage of the People’s Climate March, as brave and as forthright as any communist slogan.

Did they say climate march? Not quite. Instead, a mob which gathered for, in their words, “climate, jobs, and justice”. Jobs? Justice?

What happened, you might ask, to global warming? Forgotten. Well, it’s impolite to mention it because, of course, it has gone missing. The planet’s top scientists, having spent billions in the search, are more than a little embarrassed about not being able to find it. It’s gauche to mention it, so let’s leave them in peace and maybe, at long last, and after spending a few billion more, they’ll surprise us all.

Let’s instead talk about these marchers. Why do they say they “rise”? Well, they want to “Immediately stop attacks on immigrants, communities of color, indigenous and tribal people and lands and workers.”

Global warming has been attacking immigrants?

They want to “Ensure public funds and investments create good paying jobs that provide a family-sustaining wage and benefits and preserve workers’ rights, including the right to unionize.”

Global warming is preventing people from unionizing?

They want to “Fund investments in our communities, people and environment to transition to a new clean and renewable energy economy that works for all, not an economy that feeds the machinery of war.”

Global warming feeds the machinery of war?

“We needed a mass mobilization to stand up against Trump’s attacks on our climate and communities and fight for a new economy that works for people and planet.”

Donald Trump has attacked the climate?

[]

Why? Why are they there? A goodly proportion of the agitated could not tell you why the sky is blue. I’d bet a significant fraction wouldn’t know whether the sun orbits around the earth or whether it’s other way around. Fewer than 5% could describe the Coriolis force. And I would wager that nearly none, maybe even zero, could discourse about the limitations and error potential of cloud parameterization schemes.

[]

It’s a burden, and we’re sick of it, but click on over to read why we should be sick of it.

Update HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Stairway To Heaven, Or To Atheism? — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

A severe bustle.

What does ‘a bustle in the hedgerow’ mean? I’m referring to a previous post, wherein I said Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Paige was a liar. Why? Because there isn’t ‘still time to change the road you’re on‘. At least not in the long run, as he qualified it. And therein lies the Lie. Because there is no long run. At least, not as it applies to me. Or you. Sure, there is the Law of Large Numbers, sometimes known as probability or Chance. But that is not what governs us and our lives. Rather, it is the Law of Small Numbers. As in the number one.

Bear with me here. I’m saying that your or my individual fate is not a matter of chance. At least, not in so far as time goes. For as we all (should) know, The Bus can hit you at any time. Any time. So the only time there truly is, is the present time. There is no past, at least a past that can claim us now. If you’re reading this, in the here and now, that’s proof enough.

And likewise, there is no future, at least not one you can guarantee. For yourself, that is. You could die this instant, and the coroner would pronounce the cause, which often times is ‘unknown’. It could be the unseen heart attack. It could be the 4th of July reveler shooting a pistol in the air and the bullet fired a mile away finds its way to you. It could be the stray meteorite. Or an Islamic terrorist who decides to drive The Bus on the sidewalk. It could be anything. And that is the point.

If you think I’m being silly, ask yourself if insurance companies are silly. They don’t think they are, and they manage to stay in business. But it’s not the business of guessing who’s next. Nope, they’re busy calculating when the next ‘who’s next’ will occur. They know the Law of Large Numbers better than anyone. And they know that it doesn’t apply to you or I individually. And truth be told, they don’t care about us, personally. They only care about us in the aggregate.

So what am I leading to? Simply this: you can’t bank on the future. Insurance companies generally can, but you and I can’t. Which is why we buy their product, eh? Because insurance companies get lots of lives to live (and die) upon, whereas you and I have only one. (Note: all faithful Hindus can quit reading at this point).

And so, there is my point about Jimmy, as he skips along towards The Stairway to Heaven. No Jimmy, there isn’t time to still change the road you’re on. Because there is no guaranteed future. There is only now, from a realistic standpoint. That’s all you can bank on.

Now none of this would matter if there was nothing beyond the great beyond, right? We can agree on that? Good. Because Jimmy evidently agrees too, or else what is the point of the lyric? Well, sure, he could have written it just to sell the record, and I’m sure he did, at one level of intent. We all do our job for the pay. But Jimmy evidently had something additional in mind when he wrote that song. Because he isn’t stupid. He’s better educated, in the classical sense, than most people today. And he’s having fun with his knowledge of history while he cuts his wood. And why not enjoy your work if you can? His only problem, as I see it, is one of historical interpretation.

Jimmy has interpreted the story of life as one in which all roads lead to home. And in a certain sense, they do. But that avoids the question of whether or not there are any dangers or roadblocks along a particular way. Things that might keep you from your destination, regardless of what the map may say. As Mick would say, ‘I lay traps for troubadours, who get killed before they reach Bombay‘.

Yes, I know, you think I’m an idiot for thinking that there’s any meaning at all to those words spun by our cultural spin-meisters. And no, I don’t think you need to play a record backwards to find the hidden intent. Why? Because nobody is hiding any intent at all anymore. It’s laid out right in front of us. But we don’t really pay that much attention to the words (or even symbols), do we? Why? Because the tune is so catchy, right? And it is!

And the best tunes are composed by guys who have had some (or a lot) of classical training. Guys who know how to dress it up. Real craftsmen like Jimmy, and Mick. Guys who actually know The Craft. And I can’t forget my favorite, Deep Purple, working Beethoven’s 7th into a cover of ‘We Can Work It Out‘ . True class! And while you can’t always get what you want, if you try, sometimes, you get what you need. So what is it you need?

Well, if you’re an atheist, as a lot of people evidently are, then all you need is more time. Because there’s nothing beyond The Now. So they just need more ‘now’. So who cares what the lyrics say? If it sounds good, enjoy it! If it feels good, do it! That’s the atheist mantra. That’s what Joe Steel believed. And Mao too. And lots of good guys like them. Huh? You don’t want me associating your dis-belief system with guys like them? Why not? Aren’t you open to diversity? Are you saying there’s only one way to be an atheist? That’s awfully discriminatory, isn’t it? Don’t be such a prig, Komrade.

Let’s leave it at that. Let’s go ahead and pretend atheism is all good. And everybody gets what they want. But what if that guy over there wants to eat you? Yeah, that cannibal over there. You know, Jeffrey Dahmer, the atheist cannibal. I’m not kidding. What are you going say to him as he starts nibbling your toes? Are you hoping he converts in time to save your soul-less self? Why is that? Why do you want him to change, and not you? Why can’t you just enjoy it, like him? A little atheistic fellowship pot-luck dinner? Why are you so anti-social?

By the way, Jeffrey did convert. You know why? Because he came to realize that other people had rights that were equal to his. And so, either he had to change, or they had to change. He decided he was wrong. He said he realized all those things he had been taught were wrong. Jeffrey concluded, upon reflecting upon his past, that all those atheists who taught him that that nothing matters were wrong. And the primary means of his ‘education’ were the things he heard, day in and day out, in this atheistic, post-Christian ‘culture’ we live in. Culture. As in music. As in lyrics. Words count, you know. Every one of them.

Anyway, let’s get back to the point, eh? And that is the question of whether or not there is any rational meaning to Jimmy’s lyrics in Stairway to Heaven. Yes, I know, in your mind I’ve already prejudiced the entire case by prefacing it with the word ‘rational’. Well, that’s tough. You atheists can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in some kind of universal law (which requires universal assent), or you don’t. Make up your mind. If there’s no God, there’s no reason to object when Jeffrey starts nibbling on your toes. Or when I use the word ‘rational’. Or when anybody does anything you don’t like. In other words, what cosmic difference does it make that you don’t like something some other atheist did, if there is no cosmic order?

Yes, it’s up to you to prove it, not me. Prove why Joe Stalin was a bad atheist. How can you? Because if there’s no God, there’s no universal definition of what is good, nor bad. Without a God, universally recognized as such, what do those terms really mean? So here we are, back to semantics. The word you hate. But unless you can cite some universal congress of atheists who convened and unanimously voted on what atheism really means (and allows), then you’re really just arguing on behalf of yourself. In which case, you are simply setting yourself up as the real God. Hail Caesar. Hail you. Hail no.

Anyway, let’s get back to Jimmy and his lyrics. Why? Because they are at the heart of this matter. What was he really saying? Is it that hard to parse? No, not at all. Not for anyone who has read something from the past. Something from the French Revolution. Something from the Age of The Enlightenment. And a little something from Genesis. Let’s see how enlightened they were, and still are. Or aren’t.
So here are the lyrics in question:

If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow, don’t be alarmed now,
It’s just a spring clean for the May queen.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There’s still time to change the road you’re on.
And it makes me wonder.

It made me wonder too, a long time ago. So then, just what is a bustle, and what is its purpose? Well, in this instance, it is a noun, and not a verb. It refers to an undergirding of a woman’s dress that produced the same look on any woman. Regardless of the actual shape of her body. It’s stated purpose was to keep a weighty train from flattening out by draping it over an extended framework. It was Victorian in origin, and so you can guess that its other purpose was to hide the actual contour of the female figure (which would show if the train were to flatten out from its own weight).

In other words, it was a means of giving all women the same physical appearance while hiding the actual individual feminine form. That is to say, it was a means of achieving equality of form (which most women want in the realm of courtship) while preserving modesty in public dress.

So then, why would we then find this object in a hedge row? And why would that be alarming? Quite simple. If it is in your hedgerow, it means someone is not wearing it! Yes, she’s taken it off, and tossed it out. What’s that mean? It means modesty (and feminine equality of appearance) is out the window. So what else has she taken off? These days, what hasn’t she taken off?

Now let’s look at the hedgerow. What is that all about? Well, what is Paradise? A walled garden, of course. But what is the wall made of? The hedgerow, of course. What? Why a hedgerow? Well, think about it. If you place any credence in the possibility of a naturally perfect Garden of Eden (the first Paradise), there would not be anything in it made by Man. It was already complete. It was a piece of land, with a four-way river that flowed down and out. In other words, there was an elevated point of origin for the spring that fed the four rivers that flowed out of the common spring.

And this same piece of land was walled-in by another natural feature—a hedgerow. Which, by the way, makes for a very effective wall. Just ask the men at D-Day if the hedgerows of Normandy were any sort of hindrance to their advance. Even in their tanks.

Yes, hedgerows are the perfect natural defensive barrier. The hedge tree isn’t known as ‘iron wood’ for nothing. I’ve burned a lot of chains cutting that stuff. It’s brutal. That’s why the pioneers used hedge wood for pence posts. I’ve seen some that are well over a hundred years old, still in use, and are still tough as nails. Perfect for maintaining the integrity of the enclosed garden. Perfect for keeping the peace. Which is what Adam was charged with. ‘To dress it and keep it’. In every sense of the word. Keep it clean, keep it productive, keep it orderly, keep it safe.

So when you find a bustle in your hedgerow, should you be alarmed? I would be. Why? Because it just might mean your wife has gone over to the enemy. You know, that snake. Who, by the way, has the perfect physical shape for penetrating a hedgerow. Because the only point of possible entry is where the hedge tree sprouts from the earth, before it expands with its prickly appendages. And the serpent, being subtle, was able to penetrate the defensive barrier of the Garden. And to convince that silly gal to toss her means of modesty in return for the promise of ‘knowledge‘. That is to say, power.

Now you may protest that she was already naked, and I quite agree. But that doesn’t change a thing, because she didn’t know it. Yes, that sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But think about it. How could she not know it? Couldn’t she see? Well of course she could. But you’re looking at it backwards, my atheist friend. You can’t understand things until you understand the functions of the eye. Yes, plural, functions. The first, of course, is to let light in, in order to inform us of the exterior world.

The second purpose, however, has been lost to mankind for the most part. That’s because the second purpose is to let light out. That is, to emit the light of your soul, so that others may see what is in you. And theoretically, the two purposes should be congruent. The outward creation is bathed in light so that we may perceive the goodness of it.

The inward creation is also (or should be) a source of light. It too should illuminate those who perceive it. And they see it in the eyes of other men. Because the eye is the window of the soul. And we all know light can pass both ways through the glass, at the same time. And it was intended to. After all, Scripture tells us, Matthew 6-22:23, ‘The eye is the lamp of the body’. So let’s do a little thought experiment here. Have you ever looked directly at an incandescent light that is on? Haven’t we all? Sure. And when you did, did you see the light, or did you see the actual glass surface of the device? Of course, you saw the light. And the closer you get, the more blinding it is. To the point of obscuring the visibility of the glass.

Now turn off the juice, and what do you see? The naked bulb. The undressed surface of the object, which is no longer bathed in light. The light that formerly obscured the naked surface of the bulb. Now ask yourself this: why did Adam fall for this stupid deal? Didn’t he have any brains? Why did he listen to her? Well, was she actually talking? Did she even need to?

We know she was after knowledge (power). And when she came to him with the apple (with the half-price tag still on it, as that trick always works with girls), what did he see? The apple? Hell no. He saw her. With her lights off. He saw her actual shape. And that was all it took. It’s no secret that most men fall for lust. Adam was simply the first. And now she saw the power she had bought with that word of assent to the snake. And she uses it till this day.

And so, if the Beautiful Lady is the New Eve, and she is universally known as the May Queen, then it should follow that Eve was the first May Queen. And now we’re back to our friend Jimmy and his lyrics. Read them again. Now tell me that they mean something other than the French Revolution, and the Original Revolution. And that ‘enlightened’ souls (who deny they have immortal souls) don’t see these two events as being the true liberation of man. And more importantly, to feminists everywhere, the liberation of womankind. Go ahead, tell me.

So that bustle in the hedgerow is nothing to be alarmed at? After all, it’s just a spring clean for the May Queen, as she throws out all those outmoded things that are just cluttering up the place. Things like modesty and humility. Things that have no place in her life anymore. She’s after bigger things, like a career. And power. And with that power, she can buy anything she wants, With just a word she can get what she came for. So, we’re back to that Word again, eh? What is that word? No, not that one. Jimmy doesn’t like the original Word. So he’s written his own.

But Jimmy’s right about one thing. There are two paths you can go by. But they lead to different destinations. But you’ve got to decide, now, where you want to go. Because there’s not still (future) time to change the road you’re on. There is only now. There isn’t any more time. And look, here comes your ride. The Bus. But there’s a madman at the wheel, and he’s driving on the sidewalk again. And he’s coming right at you. Time’s up, Jimmy. Time to go, Bro. Lights out. Tell Uncle Joe and Mao ‘hi’ for me, OK? Thanks. And good luck. You’re gonna need it.

Vox Populi vs. Experts

On 7 March 1907, Francis Galton wrote a brief, but interesting article for Nature entitled Vox Populi, which opens, “In these democratic days, any investigation into the trustworthiness and peculiarities of popular judgments is of interest.” True then, and true now, only more important these days.

Galton’s article revolved around a set of observations, to be described in a moment. His conclusion about them is of more interest. He said his results were “more creditable to the trustworthiness of a democratic judgement that might be expected.” Let’s see if that’s true.

Now Galton’s real purpose in this article, and in an earlier letter to the editor “One Vote, One Value”, was to advocate the median and not the mean as a summary measure. In this, I heartily and enthusiastically agree. Means, Galton wisely said, are subject to the wild speculations of “cranks”, which is to say, of lunatics, ideologues, and activists (but I repeat myself), which is to also say to extreme numbers. Medians are robust. His analysis of the observations nicely shows this. But that discussion we can have another day.

The observations were taken from a fair and consisted of a bunch of guesses of an ox’s dressed weight, in a manner similar to a jelly bean contest. Whoever was closest to the real weight won. Galton showed that the median of the guesses was close to the actual weight.

Many people, reading Galton, have said his analysis points to the so-called wisdom of the crowds (there is even a book with this title). One man might not know a lot, but many man cobbled together do. Or something. But, strictly speaking, the wisdom of the crowds is a fallacy. The Chinese Emperor’s Nose fallacy is one name for it.

If you ask a guy who hasn’t a clue about the value of some thing, his guess is useless. This follows from the “no clue” premise (having some clue is not having no clue). And a group of clueless is just as ignorant as the one man. Forming the mean or median or whatever from a collection of baseless guesses is no better than using the guess from any one man. This, Galton, good eugenicist that he was, would agree also has deep implications for democracy.

When quoting from his paper, people often forget these words. Speaking of the “judgments” of dressed weight, he said:

The judgments were unbiased by passion and uninfluenced by oratory and the like. The [then not unsubstantial] sixpenny fee deterred practical joking, and the hope of a prize and the joy of competition prompted each competitor to do his best. The competitors included butchers and farmers, some of whom were highly expert in judging the weight of cattle; others were probably guided by such information as they might pick up, by their own fancies.

His next sentence is key: “The average competitor was probably as well fitted for making a just estimate of the dressed weight of the ox, as an average voter is of judging the merits of most political issues on which he votes, and the variety among the voters to judge justly was probably much the same in either case.”

This conclusion does not follow, nor even come close to following, from the premises. The premises are a group of uninfluenced interested experts made guesses about a matter in their expertise. And they did well, even very well. Their errors were small.

Contrast that to a largely ill- or uneducated harangued and harassed and increasingly largely disinterested citizenry asked to vote in national elections, or to express an opinion on something as complex as the Ryan health bill. Their guesses as to the “best weight” will be closer to the Chinese Emperor’s nose than the dressed ox. We have all seen those videos in which voters are asked who the Vice President is, or how many justices serve on the Supreme Court, and fail and flail. Or why we celebrate the Fourth of July or Memorial Day.

Yet Galton said, “The average competitor was probably as well fitted for making a just estimate of the dressed weight of the ox, as an average voter is of judging the merits of most political issues on which he votes, and the variety among the voters to judge justly was probably much the same in either case.”

Times change. The voting franchise in 1907 is not what it is today, and not what some desire it to be (some call for kids to vote, etc.), and it’s fair to say that Galton did not anticipate this. In his time, when voting was (let us say) a more specialized activity, his judgement was closer to being true.

On the other hand, as has often been observed, experts are increasingly poor. Probably ox-weight guessers are as good as ever, but experts in any field which is in any way politicized are not. The love of theory, the fear of ridicule and ostracism, the derangement of activism and the other usual suspects corrode expertise. That, too, is an essay for another day.

Little wisdom of crowds, little skill in experts. An unhappy combination.

Leftists Ramping Up The Violence: How Long Until They Kill Somebody?

Stream: Leftists Ramping Up The Violence: How Long Until They Kill Somebody?

How long before somebody gets killed by an enraged leftist? Let’s start a pool. I’ll be the bookie (the only sure way to make money).

Odds on a killing in the next six months, 7 to 1 against; from six months to a year, 4 to 1; after a year 2 to 1. Get your bets in early; these odds might tighten.

Some friends of mine, Roy Spencer and John Christy, were shot at. Both men are bona fide atmospheric scientists, men who has actually studied and contributed greatly to their field, and men who express skepticism that global-warming-of-doom will kill us all unless we put the government in charge of all aspects of our lives.

Spencer wrote:

A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at [the University of Alabama Huntsville] over the weekend.

All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).

Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence.

The UAH police, with lickety split speed, classified the violence as a “random shooting.

The bullets must have just showed up out of nowhere.

So the violent folks at People’s Action—why do communists always say their violence is done in the name of the people?—attacked the Heritage Foundation offices. Stormed right on in.

Media accounts call the violent actors “protesters”. The proper word is, of course, thugs, though violent rabble would do as well. The media does not use proper labels because, as everybody knows, the media is delighted by the attacks.

Why did these violent individuals storm a think tank? In their own fantastical words, “We’re shutting it down at @Heritage because it continues to be @realDonaldTrump’s think tank. #RiseUp2017 #Budget4ThePeople”

Well, what more justification is needed than in expressing (tepid) supporting for a sitting President? Off with their heads, amirite?

Does not Politico have a prime-time article entitled “100 days of Democratic rage“? Smiling at the increase in irrational tantrums, violence, and threatened violence across these once United States, Politico says there is a “vibrant culture of resistance on the left”. Vibrant.

We have already seen there exists a well ensconced culture of violence on university and college campuses, now places of strict and unthinking intolerance. Just as a for-example, students, many with those dead-alive eyes familiar from social media posts, attacked author Charles Murray and a professor at Middlebury College. The professor was sent to the hospital.

The media sighed a slight sigh and then hinted the woman with Murray had it coming because, said the Washington Post, the Southern Poverty Law Center “considers Murray a white nationalist who uses ‘racist pseudoscience…'”

[]

If you haven’t yet been shot, click on over to read the rest.

Bonus! Some extra links and comments not found in the Stream article.

HeadlineIntimidation Is the New Normal on Campus: From now on, any speaker who arouses a protest is at risk of a beating“. This is from the Chronicle of Higher Education, folks.

…Berkeley students who thought it was morally permissible to use violence to stop a lecture from taking place. As one student wrote afterward, “Violence helped ensure the safety of students.” Another asked, “When the nonviolent tactics [for stopping the talk] have been exhausted — what is left?

…for we are witnessing the emergence of a dangerous new norm for responding to speakers who challenge campus orthodoxy. Anyone offended by the speaker can put out a call on Facebook to bring together students and locals, including “antifa” (antifascist) and black-bloc activists who explicitly endorse the use of violence against racists and fascists. Because of flagrant “concept creep,” however, almost anyone who is politically right of center can be labeled a racist or a fascist.

We are all Nazis now.

Headline Antifa Shutting Down Portland’s Parade Of Roses Because REPUBLICANS Were Marching. Or, We’re All Nazis Now.

We will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out as we will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred toward lgbt, immigrants, people of color or others…

Headline Cornell Professor called rape apologist. No, not me. I was fired before that could happen.

Update NYT on Berkeley: Conservatives are “eagerly throwing themselves into volatile situations”. And just why are these situations volatile, then Finnigan?

« Older posts

© 2017 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑