Quote of the day

Epitaph

It’s becoming apparent that there’s a divide between people who are quantitatively minded, and people who aren’t. I don’t think people in the latter category can understand quite how viscerally people in the former category react against the misuse of numbers.

Nobody likes being bullshitted. I think that’s universal. However, not everyone has a feeling for whether or not a numerical statement is bullshit. The numbers quoted by Amnesty are bullshit, that’s become quite clear. The difference is between those who think that the qualitative argument - that domestic violence is a big problem that particularly affect women - is all that matters, and those who think that the accuracy of the quantitative description of that problem also matters.

I can’t stay on the fence here. Quantitative accuracy matters. The modern world has been constructed by people who cared about the value of quantitative accuracy, from antibiotics to the contraceptive pill to the internet. If you take advantage of these things, you have no place bashing people who are obsessive about quantitative accuracy: your way of life depends on them.

And let’s be quite clear: when people who care about quantitative accuracy criticise your figures, it’s not because they oppose your political positon. It’s not because they’re your enemy. It’s because you’ve got your numbers wrong. Quantitvely-minded people care about this in the abstract, regardless of the political context. In doing so, they are upholding an important value that transcends politics. Truth matters, and nobody should be criticised for upholding that value. - [source]

That's the science writer Iain Coleman, who elegantly summarizes the divide over Amnesty International's problematic statistic. 

A couple of bits of pedantry

1. "Frankenstein" is a reference to the Creator, Victor Frankenstein, not to the poor Creature, who - significantly - is unnamed. The Creature is the only really sympathetic character in the book, as Satan is the only really sympathetic character in Paradise Lost. This comparison become explicit is as the Creature[1] identifies with Satan after reading Milton's epic poem.
   
2. "Fundamentalism" is term properly used to describe the sect of Protestants who, under Lyman and Milton Stewart, published the widely unread 12 volume work "The Fundamentals" during the second decade of the 20th century. The major concern of the Fundamentalists (note capitalization) was to preserve biblical inerrancy from the assaults of the higher criticism of the great 19th century German theologians. To call me a Fundamentalist is both Silly and Erroneous, but not prima facie Absurd. To speak of "Catholic Fundamentalists" is equivalent to speaking of a "square circle" and is prima facie Absurd.
   

Is this important, or am I on a pedantry crusade [2]? I would argue it is not merely important, but essential in order to marginalize Fundamentalism. You can't marginalize something if you don't know what it is, and someone who knows what she's talking about won't take you seriously. You'll alienate potential supporters: I'm not sure you can afford to do that.



[1] who taught himself to read, if I remember correctly, from Milton's Paradise Lost, the complete works of Petrarch, and Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther"(!), which he found in an abandoned chest. "Frankenstein" is a fine book, but it cannot be accused of an over-reliance on Naturalism.

[2] To be fair, I am always on a pedantry crusade. But it's important, too.