Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 14th, 2018, 12:12 am
Spectrum wrote: ↑February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am
Example:
It is a fact supported by empirical evidence millions of people are killed through various means.
Killing another human [no exception even with justified reason] is an evil.
The above empirical fact of people killed thus must be supported by a potential to commit evil [in this case killing].
Based on trends it is most likely -99% there will be killing in the future [next minute somewhere in the world].
Therefore the "evil potential" is a human variable as abstracted from empirical evidence.
Once it is recognized as a human variable it is not difficult to convert and quantify evil potential into discrete values.
Let' say all murders are the manifestation of evil. Does that mean the presence of evil immediately implies the presence of murder? And only of murder? Of course not. So it looks like you would have to put together many other variables as manifestations of evil, but how and who chooses the variables? Which combination of them will account as more evil than the other? Let's say subject #1 rapes 300 children during a long period of his life, but would not dare to kill a fly. And you have a subject #2 that has murdered 10 rapists for the pain they have inflicted on others. How do you isolate the evilness variable here and measure it? It's what they call in courts aggravating or attenuating circumstances, but they seem more like things judged by casuistry than by statistics. Things get even more fuzzy when you don't even talk about concrete manifestations (which we could call empirical) but choose to work with "potential".
Let's see: the same subject #1 has been secluded in his home without a job for many years, so he has not committed any crime yet. In one month, he'll start a job in a kindergarten. Subject #2 has two kids in that same kindergarten, as well as subject #3, a harmless, peaceful man. How do statistics will determine what's the "evil potential" of these three?
Note we are starting with facts within human history.
It is observed factually and objectively there are a certain pattern of a range of acts which are abhorrent, abominable and negative to humanity.
Generally such a range of acts [genocide, murder, rapes, thefts, etc.] have been labelled as bad or evil, but I have classified them as 'evil' for easy communication sake.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/
Since such acts of evil are factual, it is inferred there must be something within the psyche of these humans to cause this range of evils.
The above acts of evils is also represented by a trend over the history of mankind.
Thus we can infer there is a potential within humans to commit those terrible acts.
This potential of evil can be easily predicted and verified.
For example, I predict there will x hundreds of murder in the city of Chicago in 2018, I am confident my prediction will not be far off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_ ... go_by_year
In this case we can conclude the existence of a potential to commit evil within humans will definitely result in murders and other types of evil acts.
We can also conclude a theory based on observations 'where there a humans [in sufficient numbers] there will be murders.'
From historical data we know not all but only a small percentage will commit murder and this can be represented in a Normal Curve. The same is applicable to evil in general.
The next question is what are the causes that trigger the evil potential to drive a person to murder and other evil acts.
There are lots of research done to point to evil laden elements in media, movies, computer games, etc. do trigger evil prone people to commit evil acts. A small minority may even commit evil for good no reason or causes.
The above statistics do not apply to individual[s].
The principle is evil laden elements will trigger a percentage [X] of humans who has an active evil potential.
To know whether an individual is certain to commit murder or rapes would need more advanced science which we do not have at present.
However we can narrow our probabilities, e.g. those professionally diagnosed as psychopaths are
more likely [not certainly] to commit murder than those who are not.
Spectrum wrote: ↑February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am
Here is one case of putting ratings on 'murder' which can be extended to general 'evilness'.
Just as I said above, the criteria for the evilness associated to a crime of murder, as developed by Mr. Stone, requires a set of circumstances, not the act of murder alone. But it only qualifies the act of murder itself and the direct circumstances involved, which is what the justice system cares for. It means someone might commit murder out of simple jealousy, but there's no direct relation between jealousy and murder. If Mr. Stone's scale measures something, it could be the degree of evilness of the act, not the evilness of the person, which remains unmeasurable in statistical terms (discrete values).
Agree, Stone ratings measure of degree of the act and not the potential to commit evil.
We can measure the potential of evilness by rating with other factors.
As above, if one is diagnosed with psychopathy, then the greater the probability to commit murder and other evil acts.
We can then break down the nature of psychopathy [via various diagnostic tools] into malignant or benign psychopathy. As for malignant psychopathy this can be rated in term of degrees.
Thus is a person has a high degree of malignant psychopathy and his childhood and adulthood was exposed to environment that is likely to inflame his psychopathy then we can give such a person a high rating, say 90%.
For example if you come across someone whose traits fit exactly with Charles Manson or 'Hannibal Lecter' and with same background, would you make him your best friend?
There is a danger with such ratings and thus it must be done with great care.
Spectrum wrote: ↑February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am
Pareto is the 80/20 rule and I believe it is independent with the Normal Distribution.
If we define the very wealthy as having net worth above say 1 billion$ then what counts is the number of billionaire and not their total wealth.
Just the same, it doesn't fit into the normal distribution graphic, as perhaps most situations in human society. Can you show a bell curve for the smartphone market? For military veterans? For pet owners?
Yes it is possible depending on the criteria used.
E.g. the amount spend on smartphone by individuals, i.e. some will go for the cheapest, some the most expensive, the rest in between.
Spectrum wrote: ↑February 13th, 2018, 12:22 am
I agree statistics has limitations and we must be very aware of the limitations of statistics per se, the criteria used, the population sampling, the producer, etc. Despite these limitations statistics from credible sources do provide very useful guides as a basis for general improvements.
Statistics can be useful, no doubt about it. But they can also leave the wrong impression that everything (specially the human domain) can be measured and that such measurements reveal the cold facts by themselves. Statistics can lie, as it has been proven with the common correlation fallacy.
[/quote]As long as we do not take a dogmatic stance either way, it will be ok.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.