NAAFA's Airline Tips for Fat People

Mxsmanic wrote:

Rick writes:

If Americans typed less and exercised more, this thread would
be even more pointless than it already is.

About a third of Americans are functionally illiterate,

It's 20% of adult americans, FWIW.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

David Horne writes:

It's 20% of adult americans, FWIW.

It depends on whom you read; some sources claim 99% literacy.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
David Horne writes:

It's 20% of adult americans, FWIW.

It depends on whom you read; some sources claim 99% literacy.

I wasn't talking about literacy. I was talking about "functional
literacy" which is what you said you were talking about too. Can you
cite a source that claims that a 3rd of adult americans are
"functionally" illiterate- i.e. the claim you made?

David

(above address won't work)

David Horne writes:

Can you cite a source that claims that a 3rd of adult americans are
"functionally" illiterate- i.e. the claim you made?

No. I don't note my sources.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
David Horne writes:

Can you cite a source that claims that a 3rd of adult
americans are "functionally" illiterate- i.e. the claim you
made?

No. I don't note my sources.

Which leads one to suspect they don't exist.... BJ

BJ in Texas writes:

Which leads one to suspect they don't exist.... BJ

I don't know why. Many people read things without bothering to track
the exact media in which they read them. They retain the information,
not the identity of the source.

In my case, if I read something and I am satisfied that the source is
reputable, I retain what I read; however, I don't bother to make any
note of the source. It is sufficient that the source was trustworthy
when I encountered it; thereafter, I don't have to care about the exact
identity of that source.

Doctors go through medical school learning all sorts of things from
medical books and professors. They remember much of what they learn,
but they are usually quite incapable of saying which book or which
professor taught them a specific fact. That doesn't make their
knowledge any less correct or useful.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
BJ in Texas writes:
Which leads one to suspect they don't exist.... BJ

I don't know why. Many people read things without bothering to track
the exact media in which they read them. They retain the information,
not the identity of the source.

Many people also incorrectly remember the details, or conflate them with
other figures from other sources describing other things, and yet remain
quite confident that they have not, until (and even sometimes after) they
have been confronted with evidence of this. As it is, given the surprising
nature of many of your allegations and your refusal to substantiate them,
it's pretty fair to assume you are one of those people.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Miguel Cruz writes:

Many people also incorrectly remember the details, or conflate them with
other figures from other sources describing other things, and yet remain
quite confident that they have not, until (and even sometimes after) they
have been confronted with evidence of this. As it is, given the surprising
nature of many of your allegations and your refusal to substantiate them,
it's pretty fair to assume you are one of those people.

I don't see the logic in that (although I see the convenience).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
Many people also incorrectly remember the details, or conflate them with
other figures from other sources describing other things, and yet remain
quite confident that they have not, until (and even sometimes after) they
have been confronted with evidence of this. As it is, given the surprising
nature of many of your allegations and your refusal to substantiate them,
it's pretty fair to assume you are one of those people.

I don't see the logic in that (although I see the convenience).

The logic goes sort of like this:

1. Many people think they remember things accurately but in fact they
sometimes do not.

2. We have no particular basis to believe that you remember things more
accurately than the average participant.

3. You claim things to be fact that nobody else agrees are fact.

4. The more people who participate in the discussion, the greater the
likehihood that one of them actually knows the answer.

5. The larger the group of people disagreeing with you, therefore, the
greater the chance that you are in fact wrong, and not everyone else.

6. Before you object, refer to #2 above.

Basically, in the absence of evidence, the majority recollection wins.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Miguel Cruz writes:

3. You claim things to be fact that nobody else agrees are fact.

You cannot know that _nobody else_ agrees with them, since the entire
world does not post here. Indeed, even people posting here sometimes
agree, even if all do not.

5. The larger the group of people disagreeing with you,
therefore, the greater the chance that you are in fact
wrong, and not everyone else.

The fallacy of the majority opinion. The birthplace of urban legends.

Basically, in the absence of evidence, the majority
recollection wins.

Reality isn't a function of whose opinion wins or loses.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.