Search This Blog

Friday, 20 September 2019

Review of BAYESIAN PROBABILITY FOR BABIES



                                                                               

List Price £7.99 from CHRIS FERRIE (University of Technology Sydney and father of four happy children)

Chris's Wikipedia page lists many further similarly pitched publications, Please remember that he is a quantum physicist.


Chris Ferrie very sensibly follows the example posthumously set by Rev, Thomas Bayes (1763) and his still alive sidekick Rev Richard Price by not including a statement of Bayes theorem in his seminal manuscript at all. Neither did Blaise Pascal or Pierre Fermat during their seventeenth century development of conditional probability, though they might have actually heard of it. As an albeit neurodiverse septuagenarian I find Ferrie's constructions to be almost as tedious to decipher as Bayes's. However, given all of our recent advances in Galtonian eugenics. I'm sure that the babies of 2019 will do much better.





ANNOTATED SUMMARY


On page 1 there is a red ball

On page 2 there are six balls of different colour (pieces of candy) on a cookie. Yum!

On page 3 there are also six balls of different colour on a cookie Some cookies have candy!

Image result for cookie with six candies

On page 4 there is a cookie with no candies  Some don't

On page 5 there is a bite-shaped portion of a cookie, with no candy

The same bite shaped portion appears on page 6, together with the remainder of the cookie. There are six pieces of candy on the larger portion. Did it (the bite-shaped portion) come from a candy cookie?

The picture on page 6 is reproduced on page 7. Either it came from a candy cookie---

---or it didn't .What are the chances? On page 8 the same bite shaped portion is compared with the remainder of the cookie, but now with no candies,

On page 9 there is a blank cookie with three symmetrically placed bite-marks

On page 10 it is stated that The probability of a no-candy bite, given a no-candy cookie is 1, and an attempt is made to illustrate this statement for babies by a conditional probability statement like

Pr (A l B)=1.

but where A and B are replaced by a picture of the bite shaped portion and a picture of the entire cookie. Confusing for some!

On page 11, the picture on page 9 wtth three bite shaped portions is reproduced, but now with six candies, Two of the bite shaped portions contain two candies, but the third one is blank.

On page 12 it is asserted that the probability of a no-candy bite, given a candy cookie, is 1/3. The 'justification' for this conclusion would appear to be completely arbitrary, and indeed totally incorrect if the baby had taken a random bite around the edge of the cookie illustrated on page 11. Undaunted, the author illustrates his fabrication by a conditional probability statement of the form

Pr(Al C)=1/3

where A and C are represented pictorially.

On page 13 it is stated that

Pr (Al B) > P (A lC)

since 1 is greater than 1/3

On page 14 there is again a picture of a candyless cookie, split into a bite shaped portion, and the remainder of the cookie. This is followed by the assertion that

So the no-candy bite probably came from a non-candy cookie!

Maybe babies would be less confused if 'probably' was replaced by 'more likely'.

On pages 15 and 16 there are pictures of ten delicious cookies, nine with six candies, and the other one blank.

But what if we knew there were 10 cookies. and all had candy but one?

The same ten cookies are reproduced on pages 17 and 18, but now all bitten

Take a bite of each, There are 4 no-candy bites. 3 bites are from candy.cookies . 1 bite is from a no-candy cookie

The same well-biiten cookies are reproduced on page 19.

1/3 of the candy cookies have a no-candy bite

On page 20 it is asserted that

P(Cl A)-=3/4

The probability of a candy cookie with a no-candy bite is 3/4

On page 21 there is a picture of the ten unbitten cookies

This is the prior distribution of cookies

On page 22 there is a picture of four bitten cookies

This is the posterior distribution of cookies

AND THAT'S THE ENTIRE CABOODLE





Thursday, 19 September 2019

ON TORIES, BORIS JOHNSON, AND EUGENICS



                                                               




Excerpt from A Very Public Sociologist blogspot:


To find one leading Conservative mouthing off about eugenics is unfortunate, the incidence of others indicates something else. We know about Toby Young, the self-styled "Toadmeister" and his hanging around with Nazis and paedophile apologists at a eugenics conference. He was joined this week by Ben Bradley, the Tories' new youth supremo for ill-advised blog posts advocating vasectomies for the unemployed. Speaking of the young, the semi-official Tory youth movement got it in the neck during the summer for private chats that featured "gassing chavs" among the banter, and during his mayoralty Boris Johnson (who else?) got himself in hot water by pinning inequality on IQ levels. There's more. Newly-minted minister Suella Fernandez and fellow MP John Penrose are opposed to the EU Charter of Rights because, among other things, it disallows eugenics.










 From Wikipedia:


In 2015, Young wrote an article for the Australian magazine Quadrant entitled "The fall of meritocracy". In it he advocated what he termed "progressive eugenics". Young proposed that when the technology for genetically engineered intelligence is practical it should be allowable for a decision to be made by poor parents with low IQs over which embryos should be allowed to develop using intelligence as a marker. "It could help to address the problem of flat-lining inter-generational social mobility", he wrote.[65][66]
In January 2018, Private Eye[67] and the London Student[68] revealed that Young attended the London Conference on Intelligence at University College London (UCL) in 2017, which was described by the media and a number of politicians as a "secret eugenics conference".[69] The conference was convened by Honorary UCL professor James Thompson, and included speakers such as Richard Lynn.[70]
Responding to these reports, Young wrote in The Spectator that he attended the conference as a journalist to report about it (which he later did) and that he "only [attended] for a few hours on a Saturday"[63] in preparation for the "super-respectable" International Society for Intelligence Research conference in Montreal in July 2017 at which he gave a speech, which was later published.[70][71][72] He also says that his resignation from the OfS and his presence at the conferences were unconnected.[72]
UCL launched an investigation into the London Conference on Intelligence, of which it had previously been unaware, for potentially breaking its room booking policy, after Young's presence at one of them had been revealed.[73][74] UCL has suspended any "further conferences of this nature".[75]
Young has been widely criticized for the scientific accuracy of statements he has made supporting eugenics.[76]















Wednesday, 18 September 2019

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, EVIL EUGENICIST, RACIST WARMONGER, AND GENOCIDAL MANIAC


                                                                       

Churchill appears to have influenced the worst elements of the Tory Party (e.g. Eden, Thatcher, Cameron, IDS, Osborne, May, Johnson) to this very day, based upon the ideas of Darwinian Genetics, and Galtonian Eugenics.                   

                                 CHURCHILL AND EUGENICS (International Churchill Society)

                                                               EXCERPTS:

         When he was Home Secretary (February 1910-October 1911) Churchill was in favor of the confinement, segregation, and sterilization of a class of persons contemporarily described as the “feeble minded.”


       "a letter from Churchill to Asquith, written in December 1910, stating that “The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate.”

       

       “The improvement of the British breed is my aim in life,” Winston Churchill wrote to his cousin Ivor Guest on 19 January 1899, shortly after his twenty-fifth birthday. Churchill’s view was reinforced by his experiences as a young British officer serving, and fighting, in Arab and Muslim lands, and in South Africa. Like most of his contemporaries, family and friends, he regarded races as different, racial characteristics as signs of the maturity of a society, and racial purity as endangered not only by other races but by mental weaknesses within a race


            When the commission reported in 1908 to the Liberal Government-which had come into office at the end of 1905, and of which Churchill was a Cabinet Minister-it recommended compulsory detention of the mentally “inadequate,” as well as sterilisation of the “unfit,” so that it would be impossible to have children and thus perpetuate what were then seen as inherited characteristics.

          Between 24 and 30 July 1912, a month after the Second Reading of the Mental Deficiency Bill in Parliament, the first international Eugenics Conference was held in London, and was attended by four hundred delegates. Churchill was a Vice-President of the Congress, and Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, was one of its directors, as was Charles Eliot, a former President of Harvard, and the Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, Sir William Osler.

        See also CHURCHILL AND THE STERILIZATION ISSUE


          THE TEN GREATEST CONTROVERSIES OF WINSTON CHURCHILL'S CAREER



                                                             


                                                        EUGENICS ARCHIVES


                                                        RACIST WARMONGER


                                                        RATIONAL WIKI


                                                 THE REAL WINSTON CHURCHILL


                                                     FROM THE CRIMES OF BRITAIN


                              And there's still lots of Eugenics in the Conservative Party today



                                                                             



                                               THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S EUGENICS PROBLEM

Sunday, 15 September 2019

Dr. Franz Hildebrandt, friend and inspiration to Dietrich Bonhoeffer



                                                                         


                                                          Pastor Franz Hildebrandt  (1909-1985)

I am currently reading this inspirational book, which has been lent to me by Rev. Hildebrandt's daughter.  Hildebrandt held so steadfastly to his principles of truth and morality that he was prepared to go to prison for them, for example the principle that Christ Jesus reigned in Nazi Germany, more so than Adolf Hitler..His Ph.D. dissertation inspired Bonhoeffer's understanding of Christ's presence, He was a pastor and hospital chaplain in Edinburgh, Scotland from 1968 to 1985, and he should be an inspiration to all of us during the current troubled pre-Brexit times.

       I referred to both Hildebrandt and Bonhoeffer during a short ministry to South Edinburgh Quakers on Sunday 15th October 2019, and this seemed to in part inspire four further ministries during the same hour of joint spirituality.




                                                         



                                                       Dietrich Bonhoeffer  (1906-1945)



                                   AMAZON BOOKS BY FRANZ HILDEBRANDT

                         ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW WITH FRANZ HILDEBRANT (VIDEO)


From Wikipedia:


He was ordained as a pastor in Berlin on June 18, 1933. Since his mother was of Jewish descent, he was affected by the introduction of the so-called Aryan Paragraph in some of the Protestant Churches in Germany after the Nazis came to power in 1933. Hildebrandt resigned from his post as a sign of protest against this church measure and left Germany to join his friend, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was pastor to the German congregation in London at the time.
He returned to Germany after three months, having been asked by Pastor Martin Niemöller to help him build up the Pfarrernotbund, an organisation set up to help pastors affected by the infamous Arierparagraph. Shortly after Niemöller's arrest and subsequent detention until the end of World War II, Hildebrandt was himself arrested. Friends managed to procure his release, and he left once again for England, now in permanent exile.


From Gracewing:

Franz Hildebrandt’s early ministry began and developed under the shadow of the swastika in Hitler’s Germany.  His close, deep friendship and pastoral colleagueship with Dietrich Bonhoeffer in fighting that evil power marked them both as true witnesses for Jesus Christ.
His subsequent exile to England (1937) - his mother was Jewish - his work as a pastor to refugees, as  Methodist minister, as a professor of theology in the USA and finally as assistant pastor in the Church of Scotland reveal him as a man who was fearless for the Gospel and who was also a loving, caring friend practising the faith both in words and life


Click also on: Dietrich Bonhoffer Portal.


From Bonhofferblog:


At the beginning of the Nazi era, Bonhoeffer and Hildebrandt planned actions and strategied against the “German Christians” (Deutsche Christen or DC) together, an originally rather large group of churches influenced strongly by the Nazi administration (NS-DAP).
The DC wanted to do away with the Old Testament and introduce the “Aryan Clauses,” which meant a ban on work for Jews.  The ban was also instituted in the church as well, which deterred some of the initial DC-followers, so that this group became somewhat smaller.
Franz Hildebrandt was a so-called “half-Jew.”  His Jewish mother, with whom he lived, also lived in Berlin-Grunewald.  After he was imprisoned for his activities in Martin Niemoller’s church in Dahlem, he was able to emigrate to England together with his mother, helped by the Bonhoeffer family.

(Renate Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Brief Life, 47)


THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN KARL BARTH, FRANZ HILDEBRANDT AND DiETRICH BONHOFFER

                             by Michael De Jonge


This paper examines Bonhoeffer’s understanding of Christ’s presence against the background of his friend Franz Hildebrandt’s dissertation, EST. Das lutherische Prinzip. Hildebrandt’s dissertation responds, in part, to Karl Barth, who argues that the Lutheran understanding of Christ’s presence compromises the divine character of revelation and prepares the way for nineteenth-century theology’s confusion of God with creation. In contrast to Hildebrandt’s defense of Christ’s presence, which relies on the logic of idealism that Barth rejects, Bonhoeffer articulates Christ’s presence with reference to what he understands as the core of the Lutheran Christological tradition: its focus on Christ’s person. By treating Christ’s presence through attention to the logic of person, Bonhoeffer purifies the Lutheran Christological tradition of its speculative tendencies, offering an account of Christ’s presence for a post-Barthian theological context.

Publications[edit]

  • Franz Hildebrandt, Est: Das Lutherische Prinzip. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931.
  • Dietrich Bonhoeffer & Franz Hildebrandt, Glaubst du, so hast du: Versuch eines Lutherischen Katechismus (1932). Later published in: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, Volume 3, Munich: Kaiser, 1966, pp. 248–257.
  • [anonymous] Martin Niemöller und sein Bekenntnis. Zollikon: Verlag der Evangelischen Buchhandlung, 1938; English translation: Pastor Niemoller and his Creed. London 1939.
  • Franz Hildebrandt, Theologie für Refugees: Ein Kapitel Paul Gerhardt. Issued by the Church of England Committee for "Non-Aryan" Christians. London: The Finsbury Press, 1940.
  • Franz Hildebrandt (ed.), 'And other Pastors of thy Flock': A German tribute to the Bishop of Chichester, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1942.
  • Franz Hildebrandt, Melanchthon: Alien or Ally? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1946.
  • Franz Hildebrandt, From Luther to Wesley. London: Lutterworth Press, 1951.
  • Franz Hildebrandt, Christianity according to the Wesleys: the Harris Franklin Rall lectures, 1954, delivered at Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, Illinois. London: Epworth Press 1956; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
  • Franz Hildebrandt (ed.), Wesley Hymnbook. Kansas City 1963.
  • Franz Hildebrandt, I offered Christ: a Protestant study of the Mass. London: Epworth Press, 1967.
  • Franz Hildebrandt and Oliver A. Beckerlegge (eds.), A Collection of Hymns for the use of the People called Methodists. (The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7), Oxford: Clarendon Press 1983; Nashville: Abingdon Press 1991.

Audio[edit]

  • Dr. Franz Hildebrandt and Methodist hymns conducted by A.G. Dreisbach (with Denville Methodist Episcopal Church Choir). English Sound Recording: Music: Hymns: LP recording: 33​13 rpm ; 12 in., Madison, New Jersey 1959.

                   

Monday, 9 September 2019

PRE-EMINENT STATISTICIANS IN THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT


   THEY HAVE SO MUCH TO ANSWER FOR, TO HUMANITY PAST, PRESENT, AND
 FUTURE,

                      See  The Leonard-Forster Research on Galtonian Eugenics                                                                                     

                      and Eugenics, Human Genetics, and Human Failings (1992)

                                                    by Pauline Mazumdar





                                                                           

                                                                     



                                                                         Sir Francis Galton



                                                                         


                                                                        Karl Pearson 





                                                   


                                                                     Sir Ronald Fisher



                                                                 


                                                                    Major Greenwood




                                                                                




                                                                   Wilhelm Weinberg


                                                                           

                         
                                                                         Corrado Gini




                                                                               


                                                                      Bruno de Finetti




                                                               

                                                   
                                                                     Charles Spearman

                                             
                                                                               


                                                                        David Finney

                                                                                


                                                                  Frank Yates
           

Sunday, 8 September 2019

THE LEONARD- FORSTER RESEARCH ON GALTONIAN EUGENICS

                                                                     

Here are my recent blog posts, many of which were researched with my colleague Scott Forster:

  (14) Sir Francis Galton, Ableist Eugenicist and Prolific Statstician

 (13) On Tories, Boris Johnson, and Eugenics

(12) Sir Winston Churchill, Evil Eugenicist, Racist Warmonger, and Genocidal Maniac

(11) Pre-Eminent Statisticians in the Eugenics Movement

(10) Sir Ronald Fisher, Highly Negative Eugenicist

(9) Professor David Finney, FRS, FRSE, Eugenicist

(8) On the great statistician and economist Corrado Gini and De Finetti-Style Coherence

(7) Eugenics and the Amoralization of Economics

(6) Sir Francis Galton's Highly Inflammatory 1904 Lecture

(5) The Leonard-Forster Written Submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the History of Eugenics at UCL

(4) My verbal presentation to the Commission of Inquiry into the History of Eugenics at UCL




                                                                     


And here are some old blog posts, which were patched together in much more amateur fashion and should be read with circumspection::


(3) Eugenics of the Past, Present, and Future

(2) On the Dark History of Eugenics and MKUltra

(1) William Sargant (1907-1988) Evil Pioneer of Modern Psychiatry

(0) Material on Sir Francis Galton (incomplete)



                                                                 

Saturday, 7 September 2019

Sir Ronald Fisher, HIGHLY NEGATIVE EUGENICIST.



                                                                                   


             The Elimination of Mental Defect (Eugenics Reviews, 1924-25)

      The great statistician and geneticist Sir Ronald Fisher was a positive eugenicist when he helped found the Cambridge Undergraduate Eugenics Society in 1911, Several of his contemporaries at Cambridge advocated Nietzschian ideas on the development of a superhuman race, the  Ubermensch, However, Fisher was a negative eugenicist by 1924. In the Elimination of Mental Defect, he used some very dodgy, subjective statistics which purported to justify the immense and early benefits of the segregation and sterilization of the feebleminded.

       For an account of some of Fisher's contributions to Eugenics, and their interaction with Fisher's pioneering but also suspect contributions at Rothampstead Agricultural Research Station to the Statistics of Crop Breeding, see Chapter 3 of Pauline Mazumdar's splendid book Eugenics, Human Genetics and Human Failings (1992),

 According to Rodrigo Cruz's 1980   Ph.D. Dissertartion
At the roots of Fisher's intellectual motivations, such as the development of population statistics and genetics, was his concern with the phenomenon he termed ‘differential fertility’. To him, the high reproductive rates of genetically unfit humans for life in society were the main cause of the problems that humankind faced at that time - and would also be the reason for the decline of civilizations throughout history. The fittest needed higher rates of reproduction, and to Fisher, reversing these indexes was vital to the maintenance of civilization.

FISHER WAS STILL A EUGENICIST IN 1952. In his response to UNESCO in THE RACE CONCEPT he expresses the opinion that men were not created biologically equal


FISHER'S BIBLIOGRAPHY (Wiki)

See also Fisher, R. A. (1937). "The Wave of Advance of Advantageous Genes". Annals of Eugenics7 (4): 355–369. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1809.1937.tb02153.x
and numerous other papers in the Annals of Eugenics.

See also the references in Scott's three helpful comments (below), and here is what we recently said about Fisher to the Commission of Inquiry into the History of Eugenics at UCL

(See WRITTEN SUBMISSION)



SECTION 2.3: SIR RONALD FISHER, GENETICIST, STATISTICIAN, AND EUGENICIST


Sir RONALD FISHER (1890-1962) succeeded Karl Pearson to the Galton Chair of Eugenics in 1933 and served as head of the Department of Eugenics at UCL from 1933 to 1939. He was seriously and publicly at odds with Pearson and resigned from the Royal Statistical Society because of an ongoing dispute over the chi-squared test which got completely out of hand.

During the sixteen years that the first co-author taught at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Fisher's pivotal contributions to Statistics and Genetics were extolled by his highly informed colleague George E.P. Box, who however never even once mentioned his much revered father-in-law's experiences in Eugenics.

Dr Bernard Nortonxxx argues that Fisher was primarily a eugenicist. and that this motivated his interest in Statistics and Genetics. Indeed, in 1911 he founded the Undergraduates Eugenics Society at the University of Cambridge. In 1912, Fisher also served as a steward at the first International Eugenics Congress at the University of London in South Kensington in 1912xxxi.

Nathaniel Joselson xxxii reports in critical terms how Fisher's book  The Genetic Theory of Natural Selection (1930) devotes three chapters to his endorsements of colonialism, white supremacy, and eugenics.

A number of Fisher's contributions to the Eugenics Movement are discussed by Richard Soloway (1995) in his text Demography and Degeneration. For example, on page 159, he reports concerns by Fisher and C.A. Stock (from Eugenics Review 6 No.4. January 1915xxxiii)that during WW1 as women workers were more necessary, both partners needing to work was becoming common amongst those seen as 'eugenically better classes'. Fisher naturalized the gendered nature of housework typically assigned to women. Therefore in Fisher's eyes everyone must keep in their 'rightful place' and he thought women should get back in the kitchen arguing “That the best energies of married women should be devoted to the interests of home and family is a proposition about which there is not likely to be any difference of opinion”.

While this was probably unexceptional during the First World War period (and perhaps today too, even in some places!) the misogynist arguments of Fisher are made with a basis in statistics and in the theory of eugenics. Eugenics became a driving force of patriarchal gender roles. These class conscious and quite chauvinistic attitudes provide substantial evidence that Fisher was a bigoted reactionary who was quite prepared to use pseudo-science to achieve his dire socio-political objectives

Joselson (2016a) describes Fisher's analysis of the British 1911 census data, as reported in the Genetic Theory of Natural Selection: 

Fisher’s found a high correlation between inter-generational fertility rates and a strong negative correlation between income and number of children. From this he concluded that fertility rates are genetic, and that genes for low fertility are related to hard work and intelligence”.xxxiv This remarkable leap of logic seems to incorporate Fisher's fanciful idea about gene associations with interpretations of correlations which may require further interpretation in the light of the possible influence of confounding variables.

      Based upon these highly subjective, somewhat twisted, conclusions, Fisher proposed giving family allowances to those defined as “fit” which inevitably with Fishers eugenic class prejudices meant the wealthierxxxv.