« The Train to Nowhere - Part 2 | Main | Kill a Tree, Read a Book »

Friday, December 28, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a0120a6162b6a970b017d3f4064cb970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Low Information Legislators:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

While correlation may not always mean correlation, it is very often the case that where there is smoke, fire can be found in the general vicinity.

So its OK to infer that K-12 integration aid money actually widens the achievement gap, as the data unilaterally suggests?

You seem to subscribe that getting elected is a sign of intelligence. That is a case unsupported by NEITHER causation nor correlation, unless you wish to say that the higher the office, the lower the ability to think rationally. We know that correlation exists elsewhere in government, e.g. the more money spent on public education, the poorer the results, and the higher the taxes the lower the state's growth and employment.

I am not sure it's ok to infer it, but it's certainly ok to ask the question. Causes do have effects, do they not? And aren't effects always a form of correlation?

By the way gaps are statistical artifacts, not things that exist in the real world. Statistics show there is an achievement gap, but show me an actual kid with an actual achievement gap. Gaps are usually compound things, the combination of different factors which can be and often must be, addressed independently. The achievement gap supposedly tells us we teach majority kids better than we teach minority kids. But that doesn't in itself tell us how to teach minority kids better. And in fact, we are doing a better job in teaching minority kids, much of the achievement gap is the result of the fact that the number of minority kids is increasing, not that their scores are dropping which by in large they are not.

In logic, this cause correlation thing refers to a common fallacy known as affirming the consequent:

Premise:

If A, then B.

The conclusion: B then A, is fallacious, although both may be true. However in terms of correlation, not B, then not A, is logically sound if the premise is true.

If I recall my grade school logic, the not B, then not A, is known as denying the consequent, and is not a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

Hi, I would like to subscribe for this blog to take most recent updates, thus where can i do it please
help out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Me


Weight Loss


  • BMI: 33.5
    Weight Left: 18 Lbs
    Goal line: 01-Jun-2013

The Guiding Lights

Our Miss Brooks

Cities Walked (Sq. Miles)

  • Minneapolis (58.4)
    Plymouth (35.3)
    Maple Grove (35.0)
    Brooklyn Park (26.5)
    Coon Rapids (23.3)

    ROSEVILLE (13.8)
    St. Louis Park (10.9)
    Fridley (10.9)
    Golden Valley (10.5)
    Champlin (8.8)

    Brooklyn Center (8.5)
    New Brighton (8.1)
    Crystal (5.9)
    New Hope (5.2)
    Mounds View (4.1)

    Columbia Heights (3.5)
    Robbinsdale (3.0)
    St. Anthony (2.4)
    Falcon Heights (2.2)
    Spring Lake Park (2.1)

    Osseo (0.8)
    Lauderdale(0.4)