A fact is that Catholic Person X gave less than Protestant Person Y. A theory is that based on that fact Catholics give less than Protestants. The second sentence is not a fact--it is a theory. In social science (which this is) many scientific philosophers would argue that what we call "facts" are not objective and are theory-laden. Am I being pendantic? Possibly.

If you read the article, it was not talking about person X and Y. It was talking averages. That is taking total collections and dividing by the number of parishioners. And it is not even close. I am Catholic as all here know. But I am not a denier when it comes to the less than pretty parts of my faith, or my Church.

I am sure that you can find a Person X who is Catholic that gave a lot more to the church than any Protestant ever did (and I happen to know one like that). But that is the exception, and as you previously alleged, anecdotal.

I do give the shoeboxes for Samaritan's purse each year at Christmas.

oh I love to do these boxes every year. It's not only helpful but it's fun to do. It sounds to me like you're a very giving person. We should give as we are asked or how God puts people into our lives. I do try to make sure it's really going to the people tho as much as I can as well. Too much corruption out there.

Loca, all I can say is.... think of it this way. Try to keep track this year and deduct it on your return, and then you will have more to give next year because you're not giving it to the government. The government already gets their fair share. This way you can pick who to give it to instead of most likely lining some politician's pocket. Thanks Doc for your answer.

Dr. Guy--I think we are talking about two different things. Your article might be fact, I don't know--I haven't had time to read it. My point was that what KFC said wasn't a fact. If the first 600 cats I see are all brown--that doesn't mean that all cats are brown, right? By the same token if 600 Adventist give more than 600 Catholics, that doesn't mean that all Adventist give more than Catholics. That's what I was trying to get at.

I'm reading a book on the philopshy of science right now--I think it's influencing my thought process.

It was a fact. However the method of arrival at the fact was not scientific.

A closer analogy would be that since I am warmer on sunny days than cloudy ones, I conclude the sun is hot. Hardly a scientific reasoning, but the conclusion is correct.

shades: you're implying that your standard of 'fact' would ever be possible. It wouldn't. At the level of certainty you're asking for there would be very few facts.

Well let's look at what I said first: I said this:



As you should be able to see I was talking about what we see in our office. It's very clear that one group are better givers than another EVERY time. That's why it wasn't even debateable. I'd go even further than that and dare say that the few Adventists we have probably give more collectively than the MANY Catholics we do collectively.

Now while I was speaking locally, It would not be a stretch for me to believe this would most likely be a universal principle as well, certainly after Doc pulled up his site. But also, keeping Doc's site in mind....that was dated 1993. After 2000 the CC had and still has major contribution problems due to the church scandal and it's been widely reported that giving had gone down drastically. So it's probably even more than a gap than it was in that 1993 site's findings.

As far as 600 Brown Cats go, what about the law of averages? Doesn't that come into play? Obviously if only 600 Adventists came in, I wouldn't be able to come up with my point.

Really? I disagree.

If an inductive reference from the observations is justified, it should meet three criteria:

1. The number of observations forming the generalization must be large
2. The observation must be made under a variety of conditions
3. No accepted observation statement should conflict with the "derived law" (or universal principle)

I would say that numbers 1 and 2 are the most important, and that two is missing in this case. You have a small sample from one tax office in one state of the US. Not a variety of conditions. I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that KFCs observations may not lead to the "fact" that Catholics give less.

It is possible to arrive at a false conclusion based on true observations. Take the story of the turkey often credited to Bertrand Russell. The turkey is feed at 9am. As days go by, each morning, the turkey is fed at the same time. The turkey concludes that each day he will be fed at the same time. However, on Christmas Eve, the turkey is killed. The turkey's conclusion (that he will be fed at 9am every day) is a false conclusion that was based on true observations.

All that said, KFC, I apologize for the extremely off topic hijack. If anyone is interested in this philosophy of science stuff, I'm reading "What is this Thing called Science" by A. F. Chalmers. It's interesting--if dense.

PS. KFC-I'm sure the law of averages comes in somewhere, but I haven't reached that chapter yet. I'll have to get back to you.

It depends on whether you are taking a random sample or not. If you are in an area that only has brown cats, obviously all cats are brown. Taking a random sample of 600, if you find the sample average to show all cats are brown, you can consider that all cats in the population are brown, statistically speaking. Of course there are variances given sample standard error from x-bar (sample average, a known variable) and mu (population average, an unknown variable), but ultimately, if taking a random sample it is very fair to extrapolate "facts" considering the confidence interval.

n=1000 is considered a strong sample size (where n = sample size), where x-bar is close to mu.
n=600 is considerably smaller, but still large enough that x-bar (sample mean) is representative of mu (population average). This is more useful if using a confidence interval, but with a significant sample average, even 600, the confidence interval at say 95% is fairly specific.

LW--You're making me blush--but I sincerely appreciate the kind words. I just wish I really did have "inner peace"--but I'm working on it...




Again--discussing a point that is tangential to the article.

Statistics are all well and good, but I would argue that it is not logical to derive facts from observation statements in order to make universal principles. Does it happen? Yes. Does that make it completely accurate? Of course not.

You may be able to use induction to get from a series of observations to a universal principle; however I would still argue that the observation would need to be made over a variety of conditions and it wasn't in this case. The scope was too narrow to declare that it is a fact that Catholics give less than Adventists.

and you my dear are also astounding. And wrong AGAIN. Go up and look at my response again. The above quote that you quoted me as saying was not directed at SHADES. It was directed at Loca. You may want to re read #8 and #11.

Also what part of GIVE IT UP don't you understand?



Well first off, I was at the beginning of this making only a local observation. But even doing that, and putting it with what I know, both about Adventists and Catholics I stand by my statement that on the average the individual Adventist would give more than the average individual Catholic. For one thing I know how the Adventists are in their giving. They are very strictly taught about the 10% rule. It's a very big part of their religion. That is one of the reasons they are so giving because it's pretty much expected of them to do this.

So I do believe that the local observation I made would not be something that is unrealistic universally.

Yes, let's paint with the broad brushes . . .


toothpastefordinner.com

also if their last name begins with an o' or mac or ends with a couple vowels and they have nearly as many kids as they do receipts from fishmarkets, liquor stores or both...they just might be catholics.

does donating to the 700 club or helping to pay falwell's legal expenses count as charity?

You might be surprised.