Conservapedia talk:Best New Conservative Words/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

He does exhibit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy to the n^th degree. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - and thanks for the correction(s) in the essay: I always enjoy improvements of grammar/Orthography and style! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"a bubble of maximal twelve light-years in diameter" 12,000 LY surely? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct! Thanks, larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

KJV

Another (unimportant) point is that he doesn't actually allow the entire 1600s: only things after the KJV (1612). and he rejected a couple things because of this. So the fact that there are none from the 1600s (pre-1610) is a consequence of another rule he made up (maybe note this in the table?). Of course this is never considered when looking for exponential growth, though it wouldn't make too big a difference... --MarkGall (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For once, I don't think that A. Schlafly is to unreasonable here: the KJV marks the beginning of modern English. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it. Modern English starts after the Great Vowel Shift in the mid-1500s. The KJV just happens to be written in that style and doesn't mark the start. Even if it did the KJV was started in 1604 and wouldn't have been expected to been created without some sort of popular base so there is no reason why the 1600s can't be extended to the full century. Of course as LArron has pointed out elsewhere, the whole concept of selection by century is barmy in the first place.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiny point

Under "Best New Conservative Words" you mention "292 words (July 2010)", but under "Some Maths" you refer to "280 words (July 2010)". Maybe it's because I'm only on my 2nd cuppa, but I'm assuming the second number needs changing? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 08:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

280 words (July 2010) for which he gave at least the decade of their origin, and which were created between 1600 and 1999. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(But I've got an unfair advantage: it already 11 o'clock, and I'm drinking my third Latte Macchiato...)

Lol, we need to put out an advisory. "Surgeon General's warning, lack of caffeine may result in skimming." Sorry about that. Now on 3rd cuppa and the world looks so much brighter! --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Make note

I think its important that this article make note of the fact the Andy started counting from a totally arbitary point and that he stops looking as soon as his "geometric fit" is reached. Ace^X-102 10:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean, it doesnt make any fucking sense. Ace^X-102 10:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As soon as geometric fit is reached does that mean no other word in that centary can be added? What the fuck. Ace^X-102 10:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Handwaving

From reading the talk archive I love Andy "explaining away" why radar is conservative and radio, sonar and laser aren't. Maybe it's worth highlighting this sort of logic?

• User: As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".
• Andy: I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.
• User: But "radar" does?
• Andy: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.

Um... so if radar was first, how come it's Radio Detection and Ranging (or something like that)? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie to the rescue: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the Reagan's concept of SDI and the Second Amendment, which liberals loathed. 10:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's analogous to looking out of one's window and seeing a burglar coming. The very epitome of the second amendment. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

ooh, nice analogy. Me go use in article. --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistical Model

Has anybody bothered to point out to Andy that another model can be used which would also result in apparent geometric growth (although this model involves decay)?

If you assume that the same number of conservative/whatever words is generated every century, but that half of them go out of use by the following century, then half again by the next century, and so forth (which are reasonable assumptions for neologisms), then we would see exactly the same geometric growth when looking backwards, although the real culprit would have been the loss</b.> of conservative insight... ScientificRigor (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A fun corollary to this model is that if we created a dictionary of rational terms that have remained in use (no growth - constant usage, or even linear decay as opposed to geometric), then we would be refuting his geometric "growth" while invoking the (relative) permanence of rationality. ScientificRigor (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting observations (insights :-)

Indeed, a constant rate of creating conservative words with a half-time of 100 years would lead to the pattern which Andy claims to have observed...

After a while, the number of conservative words would be constant...

I like it! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Did Andy miss one?

I don't see "Holy Grail" in his list. It should be there, even without the Biblical connotation, as meaning "any desired ambition or goal". Then again, given that it was coined in the 1200s, Andy might not want to have to find another 256 new words for the 2000s. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking things to their logical conclusion, there must have been a time when there was less than one conservative word. No? 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, Andy would probably translate "Ug!" as "defensive weapon of club." --PsyGremlinParlez! 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The Bible says that in the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. It is likely that this word was a conservative word. Since there were no previous centuries, and conservative insight has increased geometrically ever since, there would at no point in time have been less than one conservative word. However, if Conservapedia's Law is true, we should expect to see about a million trillion conservative words coined in this century alone. I can only assume they exist but have not yet been discovered. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Email - exchange with Andy Schlafly

Conservapedia: Your challange for Best New Conservative Words - Can any liberals disprove the pattern?

Dear Andy Schlafly,

at the Main page of Conservapedia you write:

That is the new number of Best New Conservative Terms by century as we find the next layer. Liberals doubt our observed doubling per century for these words, yet every layer reproves the remarkable growth pattern. Still looking for 6 more. Can any liberals disprove the pattern?

Of course, there are difficulties to disprove such a pattern. But it can be shown quite easily that it is were unlikely that the selection of words you label as conservative is randomly taken from a population of words which follow your remarkable growth pattern.

As you asked for a liberal to disprove your pattern, you can find the analysis at a place you believe to be liberal:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:Best_New_Conservative_Words

Summary:

• if the creation of conservative words follows a geometric distribution, this should be true not only for centuries, but for smaller classes: more words should be created in the second half of a century than in the first half, etc.
• statistical tests applied to the classification into decades, 20 years, 25 years, and 50 years show that it is very improbable that there is a geometric growth pattern
• this implicates that the pattern which is observed for the centuries is indeed artificial, i.e., it is created by actively (though maybe subconsciously) searching for words to follow the very pattern.

Hope this helps.

Yours Di***** Eb**

Conservapedia: User:DiEb RationalWiki : User:LArron

I got a nice answer by Andy (of course, I won't publish it without his permission). He isn't impressed by my reasoning and said that I could raise objections on the talk page at Conservapedia. Which I can't. So I wrote:

Dear Andy,

no, I can't raise my objections - as I'm blocked (together with my IP 109.90.***.*** ). As everyone blocked at CP, I claim that my block(s) were not justified :-)

(but if you take the time to check my contributions cp:Special:Contributions/DiEb, you may come to a similar evaluation)

Do you think that religious awakenings became more frequent over the centuries - or that these religious awakenings just result in more terms over time?

Is there a preference for religious awakenings for certain decades?

It would be very interesting to discuss such questions on Conservapedia - and I would like to contribute to such a discussion in a civil manner.

Yours Di… Eb…

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Draft for a 3rd letter

Dear Andy, first of all: Thank you for your answer. I was a little bit disappointed that you couldn't find merit in my challenge. Therefore, I try state my points more clearly in the two parts of this email. Part 1 shows that your process of finding new conservative words suffers from selection bias. Part 2 is a proposal (a challenge, if you prefer) to perform an unbiased test Part 1 (selection bias) The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century. What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: Century Probability 17th 1/15 18th 2/15 19th 4/15 20th 8/15 For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer: 15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265 2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed? That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words... Part 2 (an unbiased test) If you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The attached text file 500feasiblewords.txt contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. If you would mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we would get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time. Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin: Century Number of Words 17th 151 18th 84 19th 161 20th 104 Yours Di… Eb… PS: You assumed that conservative terms could have arisen on higher rates just after or during religious awakenings. Your data doesn't confirm this (see second attached file rel.aw.png)

attachment

I'm grateful for some input! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I fear that your analysis will be lost on that man's simple mind. Instead of bending over backwards to explain away your criticism, he'll simply dismiss it, which won't generate nearly enough lulz. I have a better idea, but you probably won't be too fond on it: focus on just one particular flaw, such as the fact that there were more conservative words in the first half of the 17th century than the second. Ask him how this can be if conservative words increase over time. It's simple enough for him to get his head around, so he'll probably deliver a wonderful backpedal in response. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It wont work, he knows that he is choosing words to fit the layers. His excuse is that he saw the exponential rise and simply made if into a perfect exponential rise. He is perfecting the data not manufacturing it. I think a better way might be to craft a neutral language way to explain what he was doing and then have him send it out to scholars that he knows/trusts and ask them what they think of it. --Opcn (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are both right. But...

• this time, it's not about the lulz. It's just about statistics and biased selections :-)
• there are no scholars that he knows and trusts: even his own brother isn't to be trusted, as he is only an expert, and not the best of the public. I kept the math to the absolute minimum to allow any reader to share the conclusions.

Thanks to both of you! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

funny parodist tactic

wouldn't it be funny to find a handful conservative words for the 1700's. Say 5-10 words. If andy is stupid enough to accept them that'd mean he'd have to find 10+20+40 terms to fix his patterns.81.242.60.217 (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it'll never happen. According to TALK:WIGOCP, Andy ignores earlier centuries because there wasn't a KJV bible going on at the time. IF we can get this sourced we should add it to the article. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, 1700s are fair game, as he says in the intro, "The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written virtually all of his plays." So none of that poncy Chaucer or Beowulf for us thank you. I'd love to get Johnson's definition of patron in there: "a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery".--PsyGremlinParla! 16:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

One-sided e-mail exchange

After TK banned cp:User:RonLar - and the IPs he used (together with ≈ 200,000 others) - I wrote to Andrew Schlafly, again:

Dear Andrew Schlafly, when I created the account User:RonLar at Conservapedia after our last email-exchange, I knew that I stayed only at your pleasure. But as you said: We welcome liberals as long as they do not violate basic common-sense rules as outlined in Conservapedia Commandments With this account being blocked by TK - and my ISP at home (…), my IP at work ( … ), and the IP of my local library ( … ) being blocked, too, I see no way to keep up our discussion. It's unfortunate that Karajou saw it necessary to delete the graphs bcw-001.png - bcw-010.png. Here's the answer I had prepared for [[cp:Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]: Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative. Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's database - you can get directly to the missing two bcw-003.png and bcw-004.png. It seems that the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your software to which you want attend? But quantity is no substitute or quality. You mad a couple of quantifiable claims (1-2-4-8 pattern), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R. You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them, you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of best conservative words. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the best conservative words. ~~~~ Yours Di… Eb… aka: User:DiEb at Conservapedia aka: User:LArron

As in my previous emails, I used my full name, and gave my (previous) username at Conservapedia and RationalWiki.

As Emperor Gregor said: Let's see what happens...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good effort, as always, and if nothing else, you show Andy to be intellectually dishonest. Now, I have these windmills for you to tilt at... --PsyGremlinHable! 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone Notice

Half of these arn't even words they are phrases, idioms, etc. Shit like "Blue Dog Democrat" Is three words, while RADAR is an acronym. Doubting Thomas is more of a metaphore, and Eagle Scout is two wrods to describe somthing. --BenB (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)