Jehovah's Witnesses. A patently absurd fraud?

[_Calculus Crusader]

I can't relate. I can't fathom how anyone brought up non-religious would become very religious. It's up to you, but if you can shed some light on that, I'd appreciate it.

Well, marg, someone who is "unchurched" can still be religious.

[_marg]

I can't relate. I can't fathom how anyone brought up non-religious would become very religious. It's up to you, but if you can shed some light on that, I'd appreciate it.

Well, marg, someone who is "unchurched" can still be religious.

In what way would they likely be religious? What sort of beliefs would they be likely to hold?

[_asbestosman]

My condescension is much more targeted than you suggest. I have no problem admitting that Tarski's mathematical (but not statistical) abilities are superior to mine, for example.

Do those in the statistical study mentioned earlier have a problem admitting someone has treasured abilities superior to their own if they can also maintain that they themselves are superior in some other key ability?

Regardless, I'm afraid I simply fail to see the point of such dripping condescension or why you've chosen the target you have. It's not that I never engage in it myself, it's just that I tend to reserve it for special occasions (like when someone else is either condescending or insulting). I don't tend to lay it on thickly just because I happen to have a strong disagreement with someone's deeply held (or not so deeply held) views.

Some light jabs, though, are completely my style. I think it's more productive (and even entertaining) than always having condescension wars, but maybe that's just me. Your mileage may vary (maybe you measure it with a a Lebesgue integral).

[_Tarski]

My condescension is much more targeted than you suggest. I have no problem admitting that Tarski's mathematical (but not statistical) abilities are superior to mine, for example.

A bit off topic but curiosity got me on this one.
I am just curious as to why you think your knowledge of statistics is superior. Statistics isn't my field as such but before you decide that you have superior knowledge, consider this:

1) I have taught the senior level statistics course twice and

2) I have coauthored a paper published in a prominent journal on nonparametric statistics.

3) real statistics rests on probability theory which rests on so called measure theory and real analysis as in this book http://www.amazon.com/Complex-Analysis- ... 0071002766

or

http://www.amazon.com/Measure-Theory-Pr ... 073&sr=1-4

I took these Ph.D. level courses, passed the relevant qualifying exam and have taught the real analysis course twice myself.

I have read more than one serious book on statistics also.

Maybe you know more. Maybe. Like I said, its not my field.

[Guest]

My condescension is much more targeted than you suggest. I have no problem admitting that Tarski's mathematical (but not statistical) abilities are superior to mine, for example.

A bit off topic but curiosity got me on this one.
I am just curious as to why you think your knowledge of statistics is superior. Statistics isn't my field as such but before you decide that you have superior knowledge, consider this:

Actually, my statement was more modest than you suggest, professor. I do not think your statistical abilities are superior to mine but that does not necessarily mean that I think they are inferior. However, when it comes to the application of statistics, I think my abilities are greater, but that is because it is my chosen field.

1) I have taught the senior level statistics course twice and

Mathematical statistics at the level of Bain and Engelhardt, I imagine.

2) I have coauthored a paper published in a prominent journal on nonparametric statistics.

I'm not surprised. Incidentally, I will also be listed as a coauthor on a few papers. (Not is statistics journals, but in psychological or neuroscience journals.)

3) real statistics rests on probability theory which rests on so called measure theory and real analysis as in this book http://www.amazon.com/Complex-Analysis- ... 0071002766

or

http://www.amazon.com/Measure-Theory-Pr ... 073&sr=1-4

This was my probability text:

A Probability Path

I have read more than one serious book on statistics also.

You'd probably like some of the texts I have.

[_Tarski]

Actually, my statement was more modest than you suggest, professor. I do not think your statistical abilities are superior to mine but that does not necessarily mean that I think they are inferior. However, when it comes to the application of statistics, I think my abilities are greater, but that is because it is my chosen field. .

Fair enough.