Posts by cognisonance

21

Interesting Pew Stats on JWs--Alarming Trends for the Borg

by Cadellin in

someone may have linked to this already, but the this interactive page in the pew religion study is pretty interesting, especially when you look at the trends for jw between 2007 and 2014. here's what it shows:.

jws are increasingly non-white.

in fact, the percentage of white jws has decreased from 2007 to 2014 by 12%, while hispanic jws have increased by 8%.

cognisonance

There is another tread on this same study: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/263880001/pew-research-study-on-religion

Also I did some analysis of the tends and only the non-white trend is statistically significant at 5% CI. I'll reproduce that post here:

I did some frequentest statistics (proportion hypothesis testing) for data that had sample size values. And all but the increase in non-white demographics are not statistically significant at the 5% level (meaning due to random sampling it's unlikely to tell us anything, like the percentage of men in 2014 being 35% compared to 40% in 2007 - it's very likely that the proportion of men have remained the same in the past 7 years, same goes for proportions of young, poor, and educated. Though at the 10% confidence level, the decrease in young people would be significant, so I suppose more data would be helpful to be more confidence in that finding).

Increase in non-white demographics: p=0.005744

Decrease in men: p=0.1619

Decrease in people aged 18-29: p=0.07628

Increase in those with college education: p=0.1077

Increase in those making less than $30,000: p=0.1431

If anyone wants to check my work, here is my code from R, and you can get the data from this pdf (for the proportion tests I took the percentages and multiplied them by the sample size and rounded, so there is some loss of accuracy in my tests as a resullt.

4

Pew research study on religion

by Ignoranceisbliss in

this is a really interesting study on religion that includes some info on witnesses.

it's interesting that dubs have the highest percentage of non white members (64%).

also interesting that there are twice the number of mormons than witnesses.

cognisonance

It's even worse when put in context of a comparison:

4

Pew research study on religion

by Ignoranceisbliss in

this is a really interesting study on religion that includes some info on witnesses.

it's interesting that dubs have the highest percentage of non white members (64%).

also interesting that there are twice the number of mormons than witnesses.

cognisonance

Interesting and thanks for posting. I remember their first study/survey 7 years ago.

I did some frequentest statistics (proportion hypothesis testing) for data that had sample size values. And all but the increase in non-white demographics are not statistically significant at the 5% level (meaning due to random sampling it's unlikely to tell us anything, like the percentage of men in 2014 being 35% compared to 40% in 2007 - it's very likely that the proportion of men have remained the same in the past 7 years, same goes for proportions of young, poor, and educated. Though at the 10% confidence level, the decrease in young people would be significant, so I suppose more data would be helpful to be more confidence in that finding).

Increase in non-white demographics: p=0.005744

Decrease in men: p=0.1619

Decrease in people aged 18-29: p=0.07628

Increase in those with college education: p=0.1077

Increase in those making less than $30,000: p=0.1431

If anyone wants to check my work, here is my code from R, and you can get the data from this pdf (for the proportion tests I took the percentages and multiplied them by the sample size and rounded, so there is some loss of accuracy in my tests as a resullt.

16

Do you think the 'Rama Singh misquote' situation is uncalled for?

by neat blue dog in

let's be honest with ourselves, even if you have an ax to grind with the wts.

i mean, the quote in question was merely a statement of what he believed to be a fact, or else he wouldn't have said it.

there was nothing in the quote (and everyone has the right to make accurate quotes under the fair use doctrine), that even remotely suggested that he was pro-creationism or anything like that.

cognisonance

cognisonanance: "Awake is trying to make it sound like there are valid reasons to not believe in evolution, and is trying to use Sighn's statement of fact that a 'great many' of scientifically minded do not believe in evolution as an example of a valid reason."
Which is perfectly fine. It's apparent to pretty much anyone that they're quoting him because he's in the scientific community and has an opinion about his colleagues, not because of any sympathy to creationism. Anything anyone says in public is a fact, and doesn't need permission to be published in support of a certain cause.

For some reason this forum software truncated my post. I meant to explain why. As Memphis pointed out, the context of Signh's quote is that a great many (notice not a majority by the way) of educated peopled don't accept evolution because they haven't really understood it. That there are pedagogical issues with how biology is taught and students often aren't able or helped to see the connections between the life they study (and also see day to day) and evolutionary theory throughout their studies and lives. There are numerous reasons for this he brings out, beyond just conflicts of interest such as a religious bias before study. Most people haven't traveled the world and observed the variation in life to the extent needed to really see the results of evolution. These are just of a few points he made if I recall correctly.

The problem with the Awake quote is not one of quoting out of context at the sentence or paragraph. But one of quoting out of context at the level of a complete work, his entire essay. To fail to mention this context and the gist of his argument, is to distort what he was trying to say and use his statement to sound like evidence to support a very different claim. This is hiding information that disagrees with one's argument, and only providing the information to readers that seems to support it. This is what intellectually dishonesty is, and it's akin to only telling half the truth.

Put another way, Signh's argument could be summarized to be, "A great many of educated people oppose evolution, but this is in part due to the subset of their education dealing with biology being inadequate and pedagogically flawed." The Awake is effectively only quoting the first part of this paraphrase.

16

Do you think the 'Rama Singh misquote' situation is uncalled for?

by neat blue dog in

let's be honest with ourselves, even if you have an ax to grind with the wts.

i mean, the quote in question was merely a statement of what he believed to be a fact, or else he wouldn't have said it.

there was nothing in the quote (and everyone has the right to make accurate quotes under the fair use doctrine), that even remotely suggested that he was pro-creationism or anything like that.

cognisonance

The quotation is not a misquote, the Awake does quote his works correctly and did not twist their meaning. However, it's still out of context and is intellectually dishonest to quote Rama Signh given the context of the Awake article. Awake is trying to make it sound like there are valid reasons to not believe in evolution, and is trying to use Sighn's statement of fact that a 'great many' of scientifically minded do not believe in evolution as an example of a valid reason.

48

Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

by cappytan in

jw
friends

so, the anti-gmo movement scored another victory today.

chipotle has opted to only use non-gmo food items.. hooray for them.

i'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, i have seen no evidence to avoid gmo's for health reasons.. basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that i'll buy non-gmo, so long as the price is reasonable.

cognisonance

To say anything in opposition to current science is to be put in the realm of an anti-Vaxxer. Even more so on a site filled with former Christians who were once duped by ignoring science in favor of religion.

I can see why many could feel that way. Ironically, it was science (evolution in particular) that got me out of the cult. When it comes to human health and the environment though, with science it often isn't until much later that we realize things are harmful.

Look at artificial sweeteners, long advertised as a safe alternative to sugar. While we don't metabolize the likes of splenda, aspartame, and saccharine, our gut microbiota is affected. The changes there have an adverse affect on our blood sugar, which is the opposite of what you would think would happen by drinking artificial sweeteners. Scientific consensus is now changing to view artificial sweeteners as potentially unsafe.

Look too at DDT (a Monsanto product by the way), in the 1940s it's toxicity to humans wasn't originally apparent, nor it's impact on the environment. It wasn't until the 1960s that it was shown to be really awful stuff.

I think caution is needed with GMOs and I think companies like Monsanto are anything but. I'm not anti-GMO, I'm just skeptical of them due to the typical recklessness and short-sightedness often found in human nature and capitalism.

48

Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

by cappytan in

jw
friends

so, the anti-gmo movement scored another victory today.

chipotle has opted to only use non-gmo food items.. hooray for them.

i'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, i have seen no evidence to avoid gmo's for health reasons.. basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that i'll buy non-gmo, so long as the price is reasonable.

cognisonance

Interesting article in the NYT today...
"I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s."

Cofty, thanks for that article. It is an interesting experience. One thing I don't understand is why all skeptical GMO stances fall into the anti-science bucket. Why does skepticism of GMOs place people in the same company of anti-vaxers? I think some GMOs are perfectly fine. I'm skeptical of others. I do not agree with groups like Greenpeace using the fear of health problems as a means to block third world countries access to golden rice. I see nothing wrong nutritionally with that specific product. I do think skepticism of companies like Monsanto are warranted though. Massive corporations' chief concern is profits, and therefore the science they fund has an inherent conflict of interests, and they certainly don't have their customers best interests in mind [I view them like I view financial advisers... ready to sell you a product whether or not it's in your best interests to buy].

It's not uncommon to find members on the boards of various scientific associations and food safety regulatory groups having current or past ties with big agriculture. Scientific peer-review is not a perfect system, not even close. Sure studies of the likes of Seralini et. al. get retracted. I do see some issues with the study's design (e,g, sample sizes too small). But, it is of note that that paper got republished elsewhere. From this it appears there is a political-component to what should be objective science. By I digress, the more trust people put into these large biotech companies the higher the probability that a GMO product could prove disastrous to the environment or our health. Maybe it will not happen, but the risk is there. I think skepticism is appropriate, but blatantly non-scientific opposition for opposition's sake is not helpful.

Lastly, I also don't get why GMOs are needed to "feed humanity." There is more than enough food to go around for everyone in the world. It's politics and capitalism that cause people to go to bed hungry.

48

Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

by cappytan in

jw
friends

so, the anti-gmo movement scored another victory today.

chipotle has opted to only use non-gmo food items.. hooray for them.

i'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, i have seen no evidence to avoid gmo's for health reasons.. basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that i'll buy non-gmo, so long as the price is reasonable.

cognisonance

And there is a consensus as to the safety of GMO food. To suggest otherwise is to search for the very few antagonists who 'feel' differently. From Scientific American: "The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods

Did you even read the link I posted about the 2015 article, No scientific consensus on GMO safety?

In there it says:

"The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature."

And

"A frequently cited claim published on an Internet web-site that several hundred studies ‘document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds ’ [26] is misleading. Examination of the studies listed reveals that many do not provide evidence of GM food safety and, in fact, some provide evidence of a lack of safety. For example:

Many of the studies are not toxicological animal feeding studies of the type that can provide useful information about health effects of GM food consumption. The list includes animal production studies that examine parameters of interest to the food and agriculture industry, such as milk yield and weight gain [27, 28]; studies on environmental effects of GM crops; and analytical studies of the composition or genetic makeup of the crop.

Among the animal feeding studies and reviews of such studies in the list, a substantial number found toxic effects and signs of toxicity in GM-fed animals compared with controls [29-34]. Concerns raised by these studies have not been satisfactorily addressed and the claim that the body of research shows a consensus over the safety of GM crops and foods is false and irresponsible.

Many of the studies were conducted over short periods compared with the animal’s total lifespan and cannot detect long-term health effects [35,36]."

48

Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

by cappytan in

jw
friends

so, the anti-gmo movement scored another victory today.

chipotle has opted to only use non-gmo food items.. hooray for them.

i'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, i have seen no evidence to avoid gmo's for health reasons.. basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that i'll buy non-gmo, so long as the price is reasonable.

cognisonance

I'm not anti-GMO in general, to me it depends on the type of modification (such as golden rice vs round-up ready corn). I do have major concern about pesticides and conventional (GMO or not) crops have shown to have higher levels of pesticides by the time they end up on your plate than Organic produce. By eating mostly organic that means I rarely eat GMOs. It could be that I'm just wasting my money, but I view trying to eat the healthiest produce possible as cheap insurance on my future health.

As regards the evidence for safety here are some recent scientific articles for food for thought:

And in the interest of intellectual honesty, contrast these views with the statements here:

Genetically modified crops: the truth unveiled

47

I'm at a loss at how to get thru to my parents. I fear they will die before they will stop shunning me.

by cognisonance in

all i want is this: for us to be a family, to spend time together enjoying life.

i don't wish to debate about their beliefs when together.

they can remain jws for all i care.

cognisonance

Thanks for all the comments everyone. As regards loving myself, I have taken care of that part. I have lots of friends now. Just the other day I drove through an area that I haven't lived in for over 7 years. I then reflected on my life back then and thought, my god I was depressed back then. Then I though, hmm... I didn't think of my self as being depressed when I lived here. While not quite the best articulation of thought, depression is the term I keep coming back to. While in the cult, I never felt happy. I had the guilt of never feeling like I was doing enough, guilt of being content with my life as is (not wanting to reach out more, something my ex always wanted to do), etc.

Now I have intellectual freedom and the lack of guilt. I can explore evolutionary biology to my hearts desire and it's so gratifying to me. Returning to university is a dream that I am now living. Life is wonderful. I say I was depressed when I was in the cult because I can compare how I feel now to how I felt then. I can compare what life is like on the outside.

I feel like Andy Dufresne free and enjoying life on the beach reflecting on my life and how much better it is compared to the Shawshank prison. Life is indeed good for me. I am so happy to be where I am today. Like Andy, I just hope to see my friend Red show up one day.