Generalizations

[Taoist Texts]

It is an interesting topic. When we can generalise and when we can not (or allowed not)? 'All smokers are damaging their health by smoking cigarettes'. True or false?

[dawei]

'All smokers are damaging their health by smoking cigarettes'. True or false?

 

There are smokers into their 90s... so False.

 

There are always outliers.   I study data for a living.  

 

Lies, damn lies, and Statistics... 

 

We can discuss without falling into some generalizations... I know some may be unavoidable. 

[Taoist Texts]

There are smokers into their 90s... so False.

 

There are always outliers.   I study data for a living.  

 

Lies, damn lies, and Statistics... 

 

We can discuss without falling into some generalizations... I know some may be unavoidable. 

Good, i love data. As you know the only reason to study data is to predict. And prediction is impossible without generalization.

 

Yet, an ordinary  individual in a society is forbidden to make generalizations about other individuals. Unless the generalizations are government-approved. 'Smoking is bad', 'Vaccines are good', 

 

 

Why?

 

The answer is power. To make a generalization it is to gain power over the generalized. To the detriment of the incumbent powers that be. Since we live in a zero-sum game. To forbid generalization is one of the ways to stay in power.

[leth]

There are smokers into their 90s... so False.

 

There are always outliers.   I study data for a living.  

 

Lies, damn lies, and Statistics... 

 

We can discuss without falling into some generalizations... I know some may be unavoidable. 

 

Actually, the fact that they live long does not in anyway suggest they are not damaging their health. Health is not really correspondent to mortality. I find it hard to belive that their lungs will not be affected at all. In fact any form of smoking does, just the heating and particles in general is bad so smoking regardless of what substance is generally bad for your health, though it might be a very small effect, one that most people are not aware enough to notie. Nicotine does indeed have a rather toxic substance and even in lower dosage it messes up your natural balance of neurochemistry. That is enough to call it unhealthy in my book no matter if it gives you any other symptoms or decreases your mortality.

 

Sure statistics show that some do live long while smoking, but ofcourse this is no indication at all of their health, understanding how to intereprete specific data is important aswell as understanding statistics.

[dawei]

Split this off from another topic...

 

 

My original point was mostly that there are generalizations and there are absolutes.   The original comments that I commented to were more absolutes.   Generalizing would of been better.

 

As to smoking... I really just mean that there are so many variables that we could also find a study which shows drinking water is bad for you.

 

I am sure smoking affects most people's lungs but who is to predict whose lungs are affected more or less.   Ergo, people are free to smoke and damage their lungs in the process... maybe they'll live to their 90s.    

 

Yes... gotta love data.  Nothing is more exact and yet further from the truth at times.  Always depends on what the data is about.

[Karl]

It is an interesting topic. When we can generalise and when we can not (or allowed not)? 'All smokers are damaging their health by smoking cigarettes'. True or false?

 

True.

 

A generalisation would be 'all vehicles are cars'.

[dawei]

A generalisation would be 'all vehicles are cars'.

 

particularly if they don't even know what a definition for 'vehicle' is 

[Marblehead]

True. A generalisation would be 'all vehicles are cars'.

All "real" vehicles are pick-ups.

[Marblehead]

So anyhow, here I sit after spending some time in the gardens, smoking a little filtered cigar and drinking a cup of coffee.

 

Data indicates that there is a 100% probability that I will one day die.

 

But at least I will die doing want I want to do instead of what others tell me I should and should not do.

 

Generalizations are useful but should never be confused with pointed facts.

[Brian]

As I've said a million times, I never use generalizations, absolutes or hyperbole.

[Marblehead]

As I've said a million times, I never use generalizations, absolutes or hyperbole.

You also exaggerate.

[Brian]

 

You also exaggerate.

Inconceivable!

[Junko]

I've known the case a patient who died from lung cancer who was not even smoker. How one can generalize it? I think things just happen you generalize it or not.

[leth]

Data indicates that there is a 100% probability that I will one day die.

 

But what is it to die?

[thelerner]

I never make generalizations about generalizations. 

except that one time..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

addon> damnit Brian got to it first..

Edited March 1, 2016 by thelerner

[leth]

It is an interesting topic. When we can generalise and when we can not (or allowed not)? 'All smokers are damaging their health by smoking cigarettes'. True or false?

 

We should generalise when we want to talk about a general concept, and we should be more specific when we want to talk about that which is more specific. In otherwords we should be as specific as is appropriate for that which we want to express.

 

When talking about the group of people that satisfies the term 'all smokers' we simply refere to the all individual that smokes.

 

When we make statements about generalisations that can not be said to be true for that generalisation we can't be said to be wrong in the sense of having misused a generalisation but should instead be said to have commited some sort of fallacy in our logical conclusion on what applies to that generalisation.

 

We can be said to misuse a generalisation if we meant to talk about something more specific than the generalisation itself. That is if we say fruit instead of bananas when we mean to talk about bananas.

 

If we however assert logically that fruits have a certain attribute because bananas have them, then we mean to use the term fruit but have commited to the inductive fallacy. This of course is often termed faulty generalisation. And yes then generalisation of a certain attribute can be sad to be wrong, but the problem lies not in the usage of the generalisation but of the induction of properties.

[Marblehead]

But what is it to die?

Depends whether you are looking at the physical aspect or the spiritual aspect.

 

I'm a physicalist.  When you stop breathing, when your heart stops beating, and when your brain stops functioning you are dead.

 

Many different perspectives in the spiritual realm. 

[Marblehead]

Bananas are harmful to your lungs if you inhale them.

[leth]

I'm a physicalist.  When you stop breathing, when your heart stops beating, and when your brain stops functioning you are dead.

 

What is it that dies from a purely physical viewpoint?

 

Bananas are harmful to your lungs if you inhale them.

 

Oxygen is harmfull for your lungs if you inhale it.

[Marblehead]

What is it that dies from a purely physical viewpoint?

The biology of the living organism.

 

Biological life originated from chemical (non-life) interaction.  Once biological life has ended our body returns to those chemical processes.

 

Speaking from a purely physical perspective, that's all there is to life.

 

Oxygen is harmfull for your lungs if you inhale it.

True.  All excesses are generally harmful.  Inhaling too little oxygen is also harmful.

[Taoist Texts]

You guys are waxing phylosophical, while i am shooting for a practical answer. How many apples in a barrel you should bite before concluding that the whole barrel' gone bad? Shall i drink the sea to the last drop to know that it is salty throu and throu?

[Marblehead]

You guys are waxing phylosophical, while i am shooting for a practical answer. How many apples in a barrel you should bite before concluding that the whole barrel' gone bad? Shall i drink the sea to the last drop to know that it is salty throu and throu?

Yes, generalizations are useful.  Our brain actually uses generalizations all the time.

 

But still, discriminating upon the individual is useful also because our generalizations may exclude that which we are judging at any particular point in time.

[Apech]

[Marblehead]

Coming soon to your town:  The Thought Police

[dust]

There is no catch-all answer. "When can we generalize and when can we not?"

 

Well... we always can, but often we are incorrect in doing so.

 

Are you looking for something in particular?

 

 

 

On some topics, generalization is useful, maybe even 99% descriptive. On other topics, generalization is useless, often even harmful.

 

Cows have legs. That's a generalization based on my experience. I'd imagine that not 100% of cows are born with legs. But it's true most of the time. It's descriptive of most cows, more than 99%.

 

Dogs bite people. That's a generalization I've heard, based on some people's experience. And it's not true most of the time. Most dogs never bite people. One would be better saying "Dogs have the capacity to bite people." And the thing is, people believing that all dogs are biters will only lead people to treat dogs poorly, which in turn will make dogs more likely to bite people.