Survivor bias

[Jack Knave]

No because realising ability requires opportunity, and that was the key for this particular cohort - they, through massive good luck, had opportunity which the generation before them and those after didn't.

So the key point here was schooling and birthrate. In New York the birth rate virtually halved from 1919 through to 1935, but the city had invested massively in public schooling on the basis of the 1919 birth rate and continued to do so - so the 1935 born had massively greater resource spent on them through their schooling than those born earlier or later.

And then when time came to go to university the same luck was with them. Due to the exceptionally low north rate universities could not afford to be so selective so the kind of kids who wouldn't have had a hope of getting into University of Michigan or Columbia a generation earlier (or later) were able to get in. Sure they worked hard but the key was the good luck of being born at a time of low birth rate, when public schools were being very well funded and top universities were accessible.

Later their good luck was to be actually excluded from the establish WASP law firms and to become experienced (because they had to) in areas of law those firms shunned. So when corporation rules changed in the 1970s they were perfectly placed to clean up. The key being good luck - hard work and ability are all well and good, but without the luck they wouldn't have been successful.

That would be like claiming that by putting a million dunces through law school some of them would develop into brilliant lawyers.... The ability had to be there in the first place.

[Jack Knave]

Nope - jewish unicyclists weren't successful for obvious reasons.

But neither were jewish lawyers born in 1930 or 1940, nor were christian lawyers born in 1935, yet jewish lawyers born in 1935 were - why because all the elements for success lined up, and many of them were down to the pure luck of year of birth.

All this would be survivors bias only if a wrong conclusion was made from this by opting for only part of the information in assessing why they were so successful. You seem to have analysed this correctly and therefore this has nothing to do with survivors bias.

[Jack Knave]

Er the scientific method
Any moral argument
Any Divine argument
Anything which could if true apply to all men and women
Anything which could if true apply to the whole cosmos.......

........that sort of thing.

The lines with 'if' are discounted as they can not be certain of containing any examples.

Morals are relative so can't be universal and divine stuff is obviously out as it is totally subjective.

So the number of universals would be rather small and would not impinged on survivor bias cases much and as such not really applicable to this argument. So I can't see why you included it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The lines with 'if' are discounted as they can not be certain of containing any examples.

Morals are relative so can't be universal and divine stuff is obviously out as it is totally subjective.

So the number of universals would be rather small and would not impinged on survivor bias cases much and as such not really applicable to this argument. So I can't see why you included it?

Your first point is meaningless since at least 1 thing either naturalism or a universe originating, and managed from beyond, or that we are all part of the divine has to be true and in science none has been established and remain ''ifs''

If morals are relative then morality is merely a game and I know you don't believe that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

If morals are relative then morality is merely a game and I know you don't believe that.

Of course morals aren't "merely a game" but, even if they were, then your argument for universal moral values is just a consequentialist one: "I don't like the idea that morality is merely a game, therefore...um...moral values must be universal".

Doesn't wash though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

Of course morals aren't "merely a game" but, even if they were, then your argument for universal moral values is just a consequentialist one: "I don't like the idea that morality is merely a game, therefore...um...moral values must be universal".

Doesn't wash though.

Come on Hillside you know the arguments relative morality, moral realism and moral irrealism, one is binding on us although intellectually not established.

Of course actions have consequences. Why do you chuck that in?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

Come on Hillside you know the arguments relative morality, moral realism and moral irrealism, one is binding on us although intellectually not established.

You've tried this bizarre "binding" line before I think though as ever you've never managed to tell us what you mean by it, let alone to make an argument argue for it. Clearly though some aren't "bound" because they act differently. Either way, the point as ever was lost on you - that morals are a mix of the instinctive and the reasoned says nothing to the notion that they are "merely a game". 

Of course actions have consequences. Why do you chuck that in?

Very, very, very stupid. Try again: you implied that morals must be universally objective because you don't like the idea (however wrong) that if they're not then they must be "merely a game". That is, you seem to think that universality is a function of your dislike for something.

Weird.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

You've tried this bizarre "binding" line before I think though as ever you've never managed to tell us what you mean by it, let alone to make an argument argue for it. Clearly though some aren't "bound" because they act differently. Either way, the point as ever was lost on you - that morals are a mix of the instinctive and the reasoned says nothing to the notion that they are "merely a game". 

Very, very, very stupid. Try again: you implied that morals must be universally objective because you don't like the idea (however wrong) that if they're not then they must be "merely a game". That is, you seem to think that universality is a function of your dislike for something.

Weird.

You've got the wrong end of the stick Blue.

All I am saying is that we are bound by whatever the truth is.
If morality is relative then it is relative for all, If it is real then it is real for all.

These are ideas that can ever become extinct because ideas do not.
Assent may wax and wane but these ideas are non perishable and confront everything that has ever or will have our capacities.

Your view of morality has difficulties....How can something pulled extra anally be taken so seriously and have the argument for superior arsepull made for it............How do we distinguish moral behaviour from plain behaviour.......My take on morality has difficulty because it is proving nigh on impossible to scientifically measure etc. but whichever is the actual truth that must be binding on all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

You've got the wrong end of the stick Blue.

I doubt it, but let's see shall we?

All I am saying is that we are bound by whatever the truth is.

Meaning what? What do you mean here by "truth" - ie, that which we can best reason our way towards as the most probably true given the available data and reasoning we can do, or some ultimate, universal, objective version of it that you think we can know by some undefined process?

And in what sense are we "bound" by it in any case? Even if you pick the most extreme example you can think of in the area of morality for example, someone could still behave differently if they were so inclined.     

If morality is relative then it is relative for all, If it is real then it is real for all.

What thought are you trying to express here? By and large most of us share intuitive moral values - not killing our children for example - for reasons of evolutionary advantage, and we add to that reasoned positions (however imperfectly) on the specifics - about abortion for example.

So what? Call that "relative" if you like, but it doesn't alter the fact.

These are ideas that can ever become extinct because ideas do not.

Of course they do. Ideas can readily be forgotten and, once they have been, there's no guarantee that anyone else will have them at a future time. 

Assent may wax and wane but these ideas are non perishable and confront everything that has ever or will have our capacities.

In English please.

Your view of morality has difficulties....How can something pulled extra anally be taken so seriously and have the argument for superior arsepull made for it............How do we distinguish moral behaviour from plain behaviour.......My take on morality has difficulty because it is proving nigh on impossible to scientifically measure etc. but whichever is the actual truth that must be binding on all.

And again, in English please. Insofar as I can unscramble the sentiment though, lots of things that are "relative" are nonetheless taken perfectly seriously. People seriously think the late Beethoven quartets to be great music for example, and Kylie's output to be less so. No appeal to some supposed universal standard of great music is needed for that, any more than an appeal to some supposed universal standard of moral rectitude is needed to decide that on balance not stealing is morally better than stealing.

Oh, and the difficulty with your "take" on morality isn't that it's "proving nigh on impossible to scientifically measure etc." at all - that's a secondary issue. Your real difficulty is that you have no argument to demonstrate that there's anything to measure in the first place. Your apparent distaste for the notion that morality is "relative" is not an argument for it being non-relative.

Apart from that though... 

[Jack Knave]

Your first point is meaningless since at least 1 thing either naturalism or a universe originating, and managed from beyond, or that we are all part of the divine has to be true and in science none has been established and remain ''ifs''

But this has nothing to do with survivors bias, which is to do with how we view events in our lives and world, not the 'bigger picture' which we have no real way to acquire a clear overview perspective on which to make the assessment if a survivors bias has taken place. It's bad enough doing this in our own worldly events let alone into the 'spiritual' realm.

If morals are relative then morality is merely a game and I know you don't believe that.

Just because morals are relative it doesn't mean they are just a 'game'. It's all about context and the arena in which one is working. How large the field is that one is playing in is what makes it relative or not, and even so, beyond those restrictions understandings of difference can be catered for where applicable for those who aren't bigots. The areas where extremes go beyond the pail and may be seen as universal are small and are exceptions rather than the rule in the list of possible ethical positions on could take.