X + Y = Z
You have the first variable (x) + 2nd variable or action (y) and it equals a result, (z). This is a basic formula for determining several statistics. It's also a pattern for the scientific process. However, most statistics and things people claim as science, aren't directly cause and effect. The example I attempted to use last night, when referring to drunk driving, and the causality with it, doesn't work when applying this model. So, statistics that MADD and everything they state an argument for prevention laws are flawed. Take this science fact.
When you apply this science fact Potassium when combined with water explodes. That's science fact. You have X, the potassium. Plus Y, adding to water. Equals chemical reaction.
Or you can look at it this way. Plugging a fork in a light socket. You have X, the fork and or tool. You have the action of jamming it in a light socket, Y. Equals, Z, you get electrocuted. It is reproducible the same way, every time. So, equate it to a statistic about electrocution you have to know how many people stick forks in light sockets and how many get electrocuted.
This same model doesn't apply to drinking and driving, so it cannot be treated as fact. You have the number of people while drinking, X. Plus the action of driving a car, Y. Equals Z, mortality. Does drinking and driving cause the death of someone every time, no. So, you cannot say that it is reproducible result every time. Now, according to many of my friends, even the fact that mortality (Z), occurs that it needs to be as close to 0 as it can get. Now, 0 will never happen in regards to drinking and driving fatalities, that's a fact. So, you can express the equations like this:
You have the first variable (x) + 2nd variable or action (y) and it equals a result, (z). This is a basic formula for determining several statistics. It's also a pattern for the scientific process. However, most statistics and things people claim as science, aren't directly cause and effect. The example I attempted to use last night, when referring to drunk driving, and the causality with it, doesn't work when applying this model. So, statistics that MADD and everything they state an argument for prevention laws are flawed. Take this science fact.
When you apply this science fact Potassium when combined with water explodes. That's science fact. You have X, the potassium. Plus Y, adding to water. Equals chemical reaction.
Or you can look at it this way. Plugging a fork in a light socket. You have X, the fork and or tool. You have the action of jamming it in a light socket, Y. Equals, Z, you get electrocuted. It is reproducible the same way, every time. So, equate it to a statistic about electrocution you have to know how many people stick forks in light sockets and how many get electrocuted.
This same model doesn't apply to drinking and driving, so it cannot be treated as fact. You have the number of people while drinking, X. Plus the action of driving a car, Y. Equals Z, mortality. Does drinking and driving cause the death of someone every time, no. So, you cannot say that it is reproducible result every time. Now, according to many of my friends, even the fact that mortality (Z), occurs that it needs to be as close to 0 as it can get. Now, 0 will never happen in regards to drinking and driving fatalities, that's a fact. So, you can express the equations like this:
Z cannot = 0
So, the only way Z can approach 0 is eliminate or delimit x or y.
So, the only way Z can approach 0 is eliminate or delimit x or y.
Which, according this model, you have eliminate people drinking (x) or driving (y). However, our whole society states that everyone has the right to drink (x) or drive (y). As it's stated though, just because one drinks, doesn't cause mortality. Just because one drives, doesn't cause mortality. Basically:
X doesn't = Z
Y doesn't = Z
Z can = X
Z can = Y
Why people have actively enabled prevention laws, because they say that x + y = z, but that's not the case. It's a flawed argument mathematically. If you apply that kind of logic to drinking and driving, then the same should be applied across the board. So, structural integrity failures kill several people a year. Do we then have to have inspectors check a house for exactly a certain amount of nails, at random times? Why don't we hold to or apply that method prevention to other things? You've created a false causality. Even if you believe that we should eliminate and get Z (mortality) as close to zero as humanly possible. We should apply that to everything, but we don't. The reason why, is one thing $. We find it far easier to prosecute a person saying "you did this thing wrong" and leaving it to police officers. The problem is two fold. A, you have have complete faith in the Law Enforcement, which I do not. B, You have to believe that those powers will never be abused, and it removes your personal responsibility.
So, Mathematical formulas can be applied to many things in life. Most of the things that explain us can be broken down into simple equations. It's a little different way to look at the world, but it is still a very effective way of thinking, and cuts through all the linguistical pitfalls that politicians and sales people will try and get you hung up on.
Y doesn't = Z
Z can = X
Z can = Y
Why people have actively enabled prevention laws, because they say that x + y = z, but that's not the case. It's a flawed argument mathematically. If you apply that kind of logic to drinking and driving, then the same should be applied across the board. So, structural integrity failures kill several people a year. Do we then have to have inspectors check a house for exactly a certain amount of nails, at random times? Why don't we hold to or apply that method prevention to other things? You've created a false causality. Even if you believe that we should eliminate and get Z (mortality) as close to zero as humanly possible. We should apply that to everything, but we don't. The reason why, is one thing $. We find it far easier to prosecute a person saying "you did this thing wrong" and leaving it to police officers. The problem is two fold. A, you have have complete faith in the Law Enforcement, which I do not. B, You have to believe that those powers will never be abused, and it removes your personal responsibility.
So, Mathematical formulas can be applied to many things in life. Most of the things that explain us can be broken down into simple equations. It's a little different way to look at the world, but it is still a very effective way of thinking, and cuts through all the linguistical pitfalls that politicians and sales people will try and get you hung up on.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment