CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[nonobaddog]

The only priests they will catch are the ones that molest children and then in turn the children report this... eventually. There are undoubtedly more molestings where the children never report it due to shame or even suicide and there are undoubtedly more priests that never act on their pedophilia, so the study numbers will always be lower than reality.

 

[foszoe]

Did you also look at #4651? How about the Jay report? More importantly, are the numbers you wish to use, representing their prevalence in the population in question, based on accusation or conviction? Note that the wiki figures were for convictions, the numbers for prevalance are undoubtedly higher. If you have two bags each with 100 balls in them, and in one bag there are 10 red balls and 90 white and in the other there is one red ball and 99 white; if you draw solely from the bag with ten red balls are the odds higher that any given draw will be red? How much higher for any number of selections you care to execute?

This from a professor at Catholic University of America. It is included as an alternate source of quantification. Assuming he is a less hostile investigator. There is also a rather dense study out there by NIH/NCBI

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3276082
Is Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Related to Homosexual Priests?

So, would you still like to question my supposition that the prevalence of pedophile priests is likely to be at least twice that of the general population? If so, show your work

Are you talking math or philosophy? You referenced a philosophy site. Where's the math? We all know what statistics are for.

 

[BugI02]

Are you talking math or philosophy? You referenced a philosophy site. Where's the math? We all know what statistics are for.

The statistics from other sources (which you are welcome to check) are collated conveniently within the citations. Your argument that Australia might not extrapolate to the US weakens your line of argumentation that somehow the estimated prevalence of pedophilia in the general population can be extrapolated to cover its prevalence among the priesthood. You either accept sampling and statistical analysis in all cases or none, only God can know the hearts of all men and count them individually. We can use the numbers from Ireland if you prefer.

Oh, and every statistics course I ever took was taught by the College of Mathematics, that's where the math lies. Maybe your school was different, yes? Pascal was a mathematician (and a Catholic), yes?

 

[foszoe]

The statistics from other sources (which you are welcome to check) are collated conveniently within the citations. Your argument that Australia might not extrapolate to the US weakens your line of argumentation that somehow the estimated prevalence of pedophilia in the general population can be extrapolated to cover its prevalence among the priesthood. You either accept sampling and statistical analysis in all cases or none, only God can know the hearts of all men and count them individually. We can use the numbers from Ireland if you prefer.

Oh, and every statistics course I ever took was taught by the College of Mathematics, that's where the math lies. Maybe your school was different, yes? Pascal was a mathematician (and a Catholic), yes?

I'm not making an argument, I'm asking questions.

Accepting a math equation and accepting statistical analysis and sampling are not the same.

Seldom are things all or none

It was all Newtonian until it wasn't.

Everyone said the sound barrier wouldn't be broken until it was

Where I went to school MA was a math class STAT was a statistics class.

 

[nonobaddog]

Some schools have enough choices in curriculum that they have a separate 'Statistics' department or 'Statistics and Data Sciences'. However when it is not a separate department it is always in the Mathematics department.

 

[BugI02]

I'm not making an argument, I'm asking questions.

Accepting a math equation and accepting statistical analysis and sampling are not the same.

Seldom are things all or none

It was all Newtonian until it wasn't.

Everyone said the sound barrier wouldn't be broken until it was

Where I went to school MA was a math class STAT was a statistics class.

All my stat classes were graduate level, taught within the college of engineering by mathematics professors. I was speaking to personal experience. As engineers we were largely concerned with more rigorous uses than opinion sampling and polling

I believe I've been quite clear about my ... reservations ... about the Socratic method. I took your comment about us all knowing what statistics are for to be critical, and I acknowledge selection criteria to be critical to confidence levels of results. But at some point you have to either acknowledge that abstraction can be given mathematical rigor and generate meaningful results or reject statistical analysis entirely

I cannot think of a more intellectually trivial exercise than thinking about whether selecting only from the half of a statistical population that exhibits a characteristic of concern at ten times the rate of that of the general population will result in a rate of exhibition of said characteristic closer to the mean of the entire population or the mean of the restricted cohort

Perhaps you should just state plainly what you want/expect instead of playing games

 

[foszoe]

Ok.

What was the original point of your statistics?

Most people know the Roman priesthood is all male.

So why did you point out that there might be a difference between male and female statistics? At least that's how I took your original post on the subject.

It's a ludicrous point in my opinion because its obvious.

If you were trying to use statistics to show that the rate of male pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Priesthood was higher than that of the general population then go for it, but don't limit your evidence to Australia when there are priests worldwide living in various cultures with varying rates of pedophilia then apply the same confidence intervals to a worldwide population without a demonstration of proper controls.

It makes no statistical or mathematical sense unless you provide the evidence for your assertion.
Which you have yet to do.

All my stat classes were graduate level, taught within the college of engineering by mathematics professors. I was speaking to personal experience. As engineers we were largely concerned with more rigorous uses than opinion sampling and polling

I believe I've been quite clear about my ... reservations ... about the Socratic method. I took your comment about us all knowing what statistics are for to be critical, and I acknowledge selection criteria to be critical to confidence levels of results. But at some point you have to either acknowledge that abstraction can be given mathematical rigor and generate meaningful results or reject statistical analysis entirely

I cannot think of a more intellectually trivial exercise than thinking about whether selecting only from the half of a statistical population that exhibits a characteristic of concern at ten times the rate of that of the general population will result in a rate of exhibition of said characteristic closer to the mean of the entire population or the mean of the restricted cohort

Perhaps you should just state plainly what you want/expect instead of playing games

 

[JettaKnight]

Maybe next week this thread will be safe again.

 

[foszoe]

It's safe.

I don't plan on staying long.

Going to any Purdue Football Games this year?

Maybe next week this thread will be safe again.

 

[T.Lex]

Looks like I'll actually be visiting Ross Ade Stadium in the next couple months. Been about 30 years since I was there last.

 

[foszoe]

Well, I'm there pretty much every game...and I have a cooler of beer.

Looks like I'll actually be visiting Ross Ade Stadium in the next couple months. Been about 30 years since I was there last.

 

[ATM]

...Perhaps you should just state plainly what you want/expect instead of playing games

Hang on there...

I was told there would be games.

 

[JettaKnight]

It's safe.

I don't plan on staying long.

Going to any Purdue Football Games this year?

You are not the the current problem child.


I'll be at the Homecoming game.

 

[JettaKnight]

Looks like I'll actually be visiting Ross Ade Stadium in the next couple months. Been about 30 years since I was there last.

A Roman Catholic, A Baptist, and an Orthodox walked into a stadium...

 

[foszoe]

The Roman Catholic says, look at the size of those lions, the Baptist says look at the size of those teeth!

The Orthodox says "Lord have mercy on the heterodox" then rolls over and goes back to sleep, since it must be a nightmare because if I am in here with a Roman Catholic and a Baptist we all know its an anachronism.

A Roman Catholic, A Baptist, and an Orthodox walked into a stadium...

 

[foszoe]

Maybe I'll see you there.

You are not the the current problem child.


I'll be at the Homecoming game.

 

[nonobaddog]

Did you also look at #4651? How about the Jay report? More importantly, are the numbers you wish to use, representing their prevalence in the population in question, based on accusation or conviction? Note that the wiki figures were for convictions, the numbers for prevalance are undoubtedly higher. If you have two bags each with 100 balls in them, and in one bag there are 10 red balls and 90 white and in the other there is one red ball and 99 white; if you draw solely from the bag with ten red balls are the odds higher that any given draw will be red? How much higher for any number of selections you care to execute?

This from a professor at Catholic University of America. It is included as an alternate source of quantification. Assuming he is a less hostile investigator. There is also a rather dense study out there by NIH/NCBI

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3276082
Is Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Related to Homosexual Priests?

So, would you still like to question my supposition that the prevalence of pedophile priests is likely to be at least twice that of the general population? If so, show your work

Even if they were to get an accurate number of pedophile priests, an additional problem is what the church did about it. Insted of minimizing it and trying to cover it up, they should have met the problem head on. Identify the guilty, excommunicate them and turn them over for prosecution. By trying to minimize the problem and covering it up I'm afraid they have made it part of their legacy forever.

 

[BugI02]

Ok.

What was the original point of your statistics?

Most people know the Roman priesthood is all male.

So why did you point out that there might be a difference between male and female statistics? At least that's how I took your original post on the subject.

It's a ludicrous point in my opinion because its obvious.

If you were trying to use statistics to show that the rate of male pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Priesthood was higher than that of the general population then go for it, but don't limit your evidence to Australia when there are priests worldwide living in various cultures with varying rates of pedophilia then apply the same confidence intervals to a worldwide population without a demonstration of proper controls.

It makes no statistical or mathematical sense unless you provide the evidence for your assertion.
Which you have yet to do.

You skipped a step. I was responding to an assertion that pedophilia among the priesthood occurs at the same prevalence as in the general population. An assertion without any evidence, I might add. I do not have access to a single worldwide statistical analysis of the prevalence of pedophilia in the worldwide general populace or the priesthood worldwide, and neither do you - nor am I equipped to do such a study. I am not aware of a comprehensive study done on the American priesthood, either - largely because the church doesn't want one done. So we are left with a number of geographically disparate small studies to use as data points. I selected Australia because it is first world, english speaking, educated, has an unrestricted church presence and a fairly liberal amount of immigration - in short a reasonable facsimile of the US or UK in which an extensive investigation had already been done. I have mentioned we could use Ireland, where an in depth look at the problem has also been completed

The point is/was that any figure cited as a reference for the general populace would be invalid unless it was limited to just for men in that populace, because the incidence of pedophilia by men is considerably higher than by women. So to cite any figure abstracted from the entire population as applicable to a selection of only men would be to underestimate the problem in that selection. The greater the disparity between men and women, the greater the magnitude of that underestimation.

Perhaps a different, less charged example (using figures from Pew). Among all US registered voters, 42% identify as or lean Republican and 50% identify as or lean Democrat. Among women only, those figures are 37% identify as or lean Republican and 56% identify as or lean Democrat. If I selected a random sample of only women, would you expect the percentage identifying as or leaning Democrat to be closer to 50 or 56% - and do I really need to do the sampling to know what to expect?

If The Pope says 2% but I cite a fairly long and varied list of data points wherein the numbers show much higher rates (all of at least 2:1 or more See:original assertion), what would you expect the true figure to be closer to? What are the studies/data on which 2% is based?

If you wish to argue for the use of what you feel are better studies, please cite them. Please be aware that zero studies I have seen indicate the incidence of the problem is anywhere near as low as that of the general populace, but if you know of any, cite away

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 80151


No

 

[NKBJ]

Did the serpent service both Adam and Eve?