Re: Elizabethan World view Debate

Quote from: ClockTower on August 27, 2010, 08:09:12 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 27, 2010, 07:52:50 PM

But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s^[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division

Are you making a conclusion? Remember correlation is not causation.

I'm sorry for concluding that past ages/societies of men had lifespans that exceeded childhood.

Okay. So tell us the reason you regret that conclusion. I'm surprised that you'd present data and not have any interesting conclusion, but you seem to surprise us when it comes to conclusions, like you did the "harmful effects of moonlight" fiasco.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 27, 2010, 08:12:57 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 27, 2010, 08:09:12 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 27, 2010, 07:52:50 PM

But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s^[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division

Are you making a conclusion? Remember correlation is not causation.

I'm sorry for concluding that past ages/societies of men had lifespans that exceeded childhood.

Okay. So tell us the reason you regret that conclusion. I'm surprised that you'd present data and not have any interesting conclusion, but you seem to surprise us when it comes to conclusions, like you did the "harmful effects of moonlight" fiasco.

Are you dense or just bad at reading?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 27, 2010, 08:27:07 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 27, 2010, 08:12:57 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 27, 2010, 08:09:12 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 27, 2010, 07:52:50 PM

But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s^[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division

Are you making a conclusion? Remember correlation is not causation.

I'm sorry for concluding that past ages/societies of men had lifespans that exceeded childhood.

Okay. So tell us the reason you regret that conclusion. I'm surprised that you'd present data and not have any interesting conclusion, but you seem to surprise us when it comes to conclusions, like you did the "harmful effects of moonlight" fiasco.

Are you dense or just bad at reading?

We always love it when an FEer has nothing more than personal insults to answer the critism of their stupid posits. Please do come back when you have an argument to make.

Please tell me how you intend to argue against that cancer rates rising among children isn't affected by increasing lifespans. I'd love to hear it.

Please tell me how you intend to argue against that cancer rates rising among children isn't affected by increasing lifespans. I'd love to hear it.

When did I take such a position? Are you imagining things? You might want to try to avoid double negative in future posts, by the way. (Try that bad sentence this way, also using active voice: Please tell me how you intend to argue that increasing lifespans affect the cancer rates rising among children.)

I do repeat my call for you to state an interesting conclusion based on the reference you provided. I remind you yet again that correlation is not causation.

I have concluded that you are a bad troll.
However, this was concluded a long time ago and really isn't that interesting.

Please do come back when you have an argument to make.

Well obviously you like to imagine debates that don't happen or knew you couldn't win  
Which was the case this time?

I have concluded that you are a bad troll.
However, this was concluded a long time ago and really isn't that interesting.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 28, 2010, 12:23:16 AM

Please do come back when you have an argument to make.

Well obviously you like to imagine debates that don't happen or knew you couldn't win  
Which was the case this time?

If you'll kindly examine your post to which I responded "Please come back when you have an argument to make", you'll find that you made no argument, just insulted me. Do pay attention.

I have to point out just how bad you look leading this latest post with another personal insult. You're failing miserably.

Ok if you do look back:

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 27, 2010, 07:52:50 PM

But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s^[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division

Are you making a conclusion? Remember correlation is not causation.

you asked me to explain why I regretted that conclusion
I sarcastically said

I'm sorry for concluding that past ages/societies of men had lifespans that exceeded childhood.

If you cannot comprehend why lifespan isn't an issue in that case... my goodness then...
that's why I asked if you were dense or had trouble reading
You then posted a statement out of left field that made no sense claiming I had no argument.
Poor form Clocktower, poor form. Please stop trolling.

Ok if you do look back:

Quote from: ClockTower on August 27, 2010, 08:09:12 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 27, 2010, 07:52:50 PM

But incidences among children has risen considerably since the earlier 1900s and even 1970s^[1] That's not just overall numbers, but % of U.S. population. In this case, living longer doesn't matter.
[1] Cure search org, children's cancer research division

Are you making a conclusion? Remember correlation is not causation.

you asked me to explain why I regretted that conclusion
I sarcastically said

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 27, 2010, 08:12:57 PM

I'm sorry for concluding that past ages/societies of men had lifespans that exceeded childhood.

If you cannot comprehend why lifespan isn't an issue in that case... my goodness then...

I gave you plenty of opportunities to admit your sarcasm. You failed repeatedly to do so. You alone caused the confusion.

The conclusion that "past ages/societies of men had lifespans that exceeded childhood" is, well, simply irrelevant and uninteresting. You continue to fail, more miserably with each post.

Caused the confusion? Are you really still confused why lifespans aren't an issue?

Caused the confusion? Are you really still confused why lifespans aren't an issue?

Yes, you intentionally caused the confusion by using sacarsm.

You remain unable to state a conclusion of interest from your citation. You continue to fail.

I am not trolling. Again, you presented data, but offered no conclusion. That's poor form. It should be easy for you, but you repeatedly have failed to state such.

The fact that lifespan isn't an issue in that case is a logical conclusion AND relevant to the topic.
What are you even arguing? There is no debate since you denied having an opposing viewpoint.

The fact that lifespan isn't an issue in that case is a logical conclusion AND relevant to the topic.
What are you even arguing? There is no debate since you denied having an opposing viewpoint.

Who said I was arguing. I'm asking you for your conclusion. So far you've offered no conclusion from the data. Look if you want to add to the debate, make a conclusion. If not, just yield. There's no shame in admitting you thought there was something interesting but forgot the correlation is not causation.

You need to learn that population health statistics provide very little data for interferences. It takes controlled studies (AB, ABA, etc.) to make meaningful interferences. You should have learned that in week two of your first college-level stats course. If  you need help, I can refer you to several course presentations.

If you're planing on saying your conclusion is something like: "Overall health has worsened for children during these years." then you have to rule out all sorts of causal links: better detection, expanded detection, earlier detection, increased reporting, more accurate diagnoses, and so much more. You don't want to make an "ad tempum" fallacy, right?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 28, 2010, 01:54:06 AM

The fact that lifespan isn't an issue in that case is a logical conclusion AND relevant to the topic.
What are you even arguing? There is no debate since you denied having an opposing viewpoint.

Who said I was arguing. I'm asking you for your conclusion. So far you've offered no conclusion from the data. Look if you want to add to the debate, make a conclusion. If not, just yield. There's no shame in admitting you thought there was something interesting but forgot the correlation is not causation.

You need to learn that population health statistics provide very little data for interferences. It takes controlled studies (AB, ABA, etc.) to make meaningful interferences. You should have learned that in week two of your first college-level stats course. If  you need help, I can refer you to several course presentations.

If you're planing on saying your conclusion is something like: "Overall health has worsened for children during these years." then you have to rule out all sorts of causal links: better detection, expanded detection, earlier detection, increased reporting, more accurate diagnoses, and so much more. You don't want to make an "ad tempum" fallacy, right?

What does any of that have to do with me pointing out lifespan is not an issue? Are you really making up conclusions for me just so that you can argue?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 28, 2010, 02:03:57 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 28, 2010, 01:54:06 AM

The fact that lifespan isn't an issue in that case is a logical conclusion AND relevant to the topic.
What are you even arguing? There is no debate since you denied having an opposing viewpoint.

Who said I was arguing. I'm asking you for your conclusion. So far you've offered no conclusion from the data. Look if you want to add to the debate, make a conclusion. If not, just yield. There's no shame in admitting you thought there was something interesting but forgot the correlation is not causation.

You need to learn that population health statistics provide very little data for interferences. It takes controlled studies (AB, ABA, etc.) to make meaningful interferences. You should have learned that in week two of your first college-level stats course. If  you need help, I can refer you to several course presentations.

If you're planing on saying your conclusion is something like: "Overall health has worsened for children during these years." then you have to rule out all sorts of causal links: better detection, expanded detection, earlier detection, increased reporting, more accurate diagnoses, and so much more. You don't want to make an "ad tempum" fallacy, right?

What does any of that have to do with me pointing out lifespan is not an issue? Are you really making up conclusions for me just so that you can argue?

I'm trying to encourage you to make your own conclusion to add to the debate. Why do you say the lifespan is not an issue? Surely you must be qualifiying it in some way, but forgetting to express it. One clear indicator of public health is average lifespan, right?

Looking at your source, Ichi, it seems the data doesn't really mean much.

For some age groups, the numbers dropped during a period, but went on the rise again next period.

I should go search for more sources on this, but I'm too tired, not looking for an argument and it really just looks like anomalous data. I'm also not sure how a disease like cancer can be handled by traditional medicinal techniques, since cancer only has one way of being cured: complete removal.

But like I said, I'm not coming to a major conclusion or looking for an argument. That's just what I think at first glance. I am more than likely wrong.

All namecalling aside now, but I think all of you could benefit in a basic statistics class.  Drawing fundamental conclusions from single source statistics and conjecture is not a good way to form an opinion.  It is far to easy to draw a causal relation from mere correlation.  The increase of many childhood diseases is certainly affected by the fact that infant and child mortality is far lower in the industrialized world then it has ever been.  Greater access to preventative care and treatment of illness has certainly lead to more children living long enough to actually catch some of these diseases that are on the rise.  There also are likely environmental and genetic factors coming into play that were not present earlier in man's history.   There is no one simple answer that universally applies to all of these conditions.  You have to look at each disease individually and look at the known and likely causative elements, and then conclude.  So both of you are right, and both are horribly wrong. 

All namecalling aside now, but I think all of you could benefit in a basic statistics class.  Drawing fundamental conclusions from single source statistics and conjecture is not a good way to form an opinion.  It is far to easy to draw a causal relation from mere correlation.  The increase of many childhood diseases is certainly affected by the fact that infant and child mortality is far lower in the industrialized world then it has ever been.  Greater access to preventative care and treatment of illness has certainly lead to more children living long enough to actually catch some of these diseases that are on the rise.  There also are likely environmental and genetic factors coming into play that were not present earlier in man's history.   There is no one simple answer that universally applies to all of these conditions.  You have to look at each disease individually and look at the known and likely causative elements, and then conclude.  So both of you are right, and both are horribly wrong. 

If you're saying that I'm wrong (and you not clear about that), I'd like to know what I said was wrong and the reason you feel that I was.

CT, you seem too be looking for a single, neat little answer to what is in reality a very complicated issue.  That is where you are both going wrong.

Couldn't higher cancer rates in children have to do with the fact that in the 1800s, cancer might not have been diagnosed as well? In other words, a kid dies from cancer but that isn't recorded.

Lower life expectancy also.  People die from other things before the cancer has a chance to get them.

Both Trekky and Username are correct that those are likely factors.  See how complex this is?

The fact that lifespan isn't an issue in that case is a logical conclusion AND relevant to the topic.
What are you even arguing? There is no debate since you denied having an opposing viewpoint.

This is the kind of thinking that got Ichimaru Gin into the the useless moonlight and collenchyma debacle.

While there is a very small hint of truth in what he says (as was not the case with moonlight) he is still taking a minute part of a complex problem and drawing conclusions on the whole issue.

Cancer is not one of the first 5 child killers, and in countries like the United Kingdom the deaths from cancer among people under the age of 40 is less than 1% of the deaths by cancer of people older than 40. Other countries have similar data.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/mortality/age/index.htm

The main child killers continue to be much of the same as 100 years ago, including acute respiratory infections, measles, diarrhea and dehydration, malnutrition. Those are all almost eliminated in industrialized societies, where good physicians and enough economic resources have made childhood among the safest periods of human life (except for accidents and violence). Third world countries, especially in Africa, live like they had for centuries and have a child or two or more dead in every extended family.

Even if your statements happen to be correct, and something new is making children fall with cancer and current treatments are doing more harm than good (highly unlikely) you still have a completely irrelevant grudge.