Here's a small thread on a curious sermon by St. Bonaventure, describing 12 MIRACLES that took place on 25 December 0.
Jesus's birthday.
There will be much caterwauling denial anger ridicule scoffing tears weeping and gnashing of teeth when we reach #7.
#1 'a fulgent star appeared in the sky in parts of the East'
The Star of Bethlehem.
#2 'a golden circle that appeared near the sun'
#3 'the temple of peace in Rome fell to the ground'.
#4 'in Rome a large gush of oil sprung up from the ground and flowed into the Tiber'
#5 'the vinae Engaddi, from which perfume is made, sprouted, flourished, extended its branches and produced its scented liquid'
#6 '30,000 criminals were killed by the Emperor'
#7. Sit down first.
'all the sodomites in the whole world died, both male and female, according to Jerome (3) commenting on the Psalm: The light was born for the just, which shows that He who was born came to reform nature and to promote chastity.'
#8 'brute animals spoke in Judea, among them, two oxen'
#9 'all the idols of Egypt were destroyed when the Virgin gave birth'
#10 'when the Infant was laying in the Manger, the ox and donkey knelt before Him, as if they had reason, and adored Him'
#11 'the whole world was in peace'
#12 'in the East three suns appeared in the sky'
People do not like #7, and even dispute it. But it's genuine. Here's the whole thing in Latin.
And in translation.
Given that the words are, to put it lightly, deeply unpalatable to Prideful ears, there has even been scholarly dispute over whether the original Latin was genuine.
But scholars have concluded the text is authentic.
Part of the confusion may be due to a continuing typo, with some ascribing the quotation to Sermon XXI (21) and not XXII (22).
Anyway, St. Bonaventure does not tell us how Jerome came to believe that all who enjoyed sodomy died on Christmas Day.
Jerome is supposed to comment on Isiah 19, which foretells Christ's birth, and to Psalm 96, which Jerome calls "an enthronement hymn" in 'The New Jerome Biblical Commentary'. But I see no other allusions.
Not enough of a Jerome scholar to dig deeper on that.
North Carolina tried to shut up a man named Nutt who was criticizing flaws in public works - using math.
Nutt didn't have an Expert "license", so the state threatened to arrest him.
Now Nutt was a trained engineer, but without the blessing.
After he retired, among other things, he "testified about an error he discovered in a development plan's calculation of the capacity of a stormwater detention pond."
He testified that the state's stormwater system was "negligently designed". Etc.
The state countered "his testimony about the fluid-flow capacity of the diverter would constitute the unauthorized practice of engineering under the relevant statutory authority."
At bottom are links to my blog and SS for the FULL analysis.
I took the data as is. If it's a fraud, or incomplete, so is my analysis.
Thread only highlights the place where there might be a signal, but which is also being misinterpreted.
There is no control group. This data only has people who got at least one shot. Ascribing causation or its strength is not possible. But there might be hints.
Here is a histogram of the number of days until death after getting just 1 shot, just 2, and so on, for those who died.
In other words, for those who only got 1 shot, and no more, count the number of days until death. Then plot a histogram of days until death of all such people. Then do the same for those who got just 2 shots, and so on.
Anybody who uses 'racist' or 'racism' as an accusation is deluded, or ignorant, or addled, or is an ideologue or a bad person.
Some wisdom from the late philosopher David Stove, on "racism".
Stove: “'racism' is one of those words which are so perfectly foolish that they are valuable as diagnostics: no sensible person ever uses them, except in quotation marks.”
Next, why you should follow his example.
Stove: "Why is 'racism; an utterly foolish word? For the same reason that 'eastism' would be, if we had such a word for the belief that the sun rises in the east. There is no need for a word, and therefore no usefulness in a word, for a belief which everyone knows is true."
How the worst statistical mistake of all time will doom us.
1. In Griggs v Duke Power Co, the Supreme Court in effect ruled that "discrimination" was henceforth a bad word, and that it could exist even when it did not.
2. Lack of Victim group proportion representation -in any activity or organization - became the standard for "proof" of discrimination, even if no person was individually "discriminated against" because he was a Victim.
This is the statistical mistake.
3. It's a mistake because even if every Victim and non-Victim where equally capable or tempered, then the chance some employer or group would have non-proportional representation of Victims is high, even if nobody anywhere had any intention of discriminating, and all are equal.
A theory must say X is IMPOSSIBLE, and we must observe X, for the theory to be falsified. That can happen, of course, but usually most theories are "fuzzy"; they say "X is NOT LIKELY", not impossible, so when X is observed, the theory is not falsified.
3. It is this fuzziness, which is often formal, and in the form of probability, that saves beloved and lucrative theories from falsification. For the theory lover can always say "The conditions weren't right."