r**t
发帖数: 115 | 1 XMWIM,
I am glad that there’s Chinese willing to call him/herself as 自由派基督徒.
That’s progress already. But I am not sure your 定义 of 自由派基督徒 is
following the convention we use in the public.
To define something as liberal, you have to say “relative to who”. e.g.
East relative to China is west to USA. In religion, To “KJV only” people,
every Christian who does not use KJV is liberal. To snake handler, every
Christian who does not play with snake in his/her worship is liberal.
So when mainstream media (e.g. CNN, NBC…) uses the term “liberal Christian
”, who do they refer to? They use the term “liberal Christian” in a
political sense, but mostly they follow this formula:
A: Do they believe Jesus is the Only God?
A1: No. they are non- Christians.
A2: Yes, they are Christians.
Among A2, Do they believe in Trinity?
B1: No. They are Non-Trinitarian Christians (e.g. Ben Carson, Mitt Romney)
B2:Yes, They are Trinitarian Christians. (short as Christian sometimes)
Among B2: Do they believe in Reformation (i.e. Anyone can interpret Bible,
no outside authority needed)?
C1: No. They are historical Christians (i.e. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox)
C2: Yes, They are Protestants
Among C2, do they accept Evangelical core value (i.e. Anti-abortion, Anti-
gay”…)?
D1: Yes. they are Conservatives
D2: No. They are liberals (e.g. Obama, Bill, Hillary, George H W Bush...).
In mainstream media, the term Liberal Christian is used interchangeably with
the term Mainline Protestant or Mainstream American Protestant. You can
find the definition of Mainline Protestant at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant
Yes, whenever they use “Mainstream Protestants”, they are referring to the
liberals, contrary to many Evangelicals want you to believe. |
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 2 这个傻逼会说，你这是“mainstream media”的定义，不是他的定义。
他无视一个概念约定俗成的含义，所以才会有高达81%的网友认为他是个傻逼。 |
n********n
发帖数: 8336 | 3 这位XMWIMh号称无神论的基督徒, 已经是自由派中的自由派了, 就这么随性 : )。 他
所信的已经和宗教信仰无关了。 well, 他可以自定义为宗教信仰, 就像把艺术成为哲
学一样。
Again 就这么随性! 或许今天信的, 明天可以推翻, 不这样怎么体现"自由"呢?
另外他确实代表不了自由派, 而是大雜荟中的一个。
徒.
,
every
Christian
【在 r**t 的大作中提到】
: XMWIM,
: I am glad that there’s Chinese willing to call him/herself as 自由派基督徒.
: That’s progress already. But I am not sure your 定义 of 自由派基督徒 is
: following the convention we use in the public.
: To define something as liberal, you have to say “relative to who”. e.g.
: East relative to China is west to USA. In religion, To “KJV only” people,
: every Christian who does not use KJV is liberal. To snake handler, every
: Christian who does not play with snake in his/her worship is liberal.
: So when mainstream media (e.g. CNN, NBC…) uses the term “liberal Christian
: ”, who do they refer to? They use the term “liberal Christian” in a
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 4
这样的“随性”实际上是愚蠢的结果。
【在 n********n 的大作中提到】
: 这位XMWIMh号称无神论的基督徒, 已经是自由派中的自由派了, 就这么随性 : )。 他
: 所信的已经和宗教信仰无关了。 well, 他可以自定义为宗教信仰, 就像把艺术成为哲
: 学一样。
: Again 就这么随性! 或许今天信的, 明天可以推翻, 不这样怎么体现"自由"呢?
: 另外他确实代表不了自由派, 而是大雜荟中的一个。
:
: 徒.
: ,
: every
: Christian
|
r**t
发帖数: 115 | 5 If he/she is 号称无神论的基督徒, then he/she is non- Christian. Liberal or
conservative is not relevant here.
【在 n********n 的大作中提到】
: 这位XMWIMh号称无神论的基督徒, 已经是自由派中的自由派了, 就这么随性 : )。 他
: 所信的已经和宗教信仰无关了。 well, 他可以自定义为宗教信仰, 就像把艺术成为哲
: 学一样。
: Again 就这么随性! 或许今天信的, 明天可以推翻, 不这样怎么体现"自由"呢?
: 另外他确实代表不了自由派, 而是大雜荟中的一个。
:
: 徒.
: ,
: every
: Christian
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 6
or
同意。
很多概念，尽管没有精确定义，约定俗成的含义大致是清晰的。
一方面自称是无神论者，一方面又以基督徒自居，这样的人必然是傻逼。
【在 r**t 的大作中提到】
: If he/she is 号称无神论的基督徒, then he/she is non- Christian. Liberal or
: conservative is not relevant here.
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 7 Rcet,
I appreciate hearing your thoughts on liberal Christianity.
However, with all due respect, I do not see good evidence to corroborate
your opinions. The Wikipedia page you provided does not say Liberal
Christianity is used interchangeably with Mainline Protestant or Mainstream
American Protestant; instead it states that “Mainline churches hold a wide
range of theologies—conservative, moderate and liberal”. The meticulous
formula you devised remains as your personal asset until a reliable source
is furnished, say, a peer-reviewed journal of religious studies.
So far, you have voiced your opinion but have not “proven” anything.
Obviously you are not an expert on this topic; neither am I. To avoid the
risk of misrepresenting “the public” you and many others stressed, how
about we turning to the serious religious scholars to see what they have to
say?
To be concise and straightforward, I will, first of all, quote a
professional conclusion from The Journal of Religion (published by
University of Chicago): “Liberal Christians hold no set of doctrines in
common” (Fig 01). The occurrence of this seemingly futile discovery was not
caused by religious scholars’ laziness or retardation that they failed to
find the commonality among Liberal Christians; it is because “Liberal
Christians” is indeed an umbrella term used as liberally as it advocates.
The only thing we can be sure about is its origin: it was coined in 18th
Century during the Age of Enlightenment in the context of biblical criticism
. A bunches of “liberal” theologians interpreted the Bible from a non-
propositional perspective, in other words, they did not regard the Bible as
a collection of factual statements but instead historical documents that
reflected authors’ personal understandings of their inner and outer worlds.
Bear in mind: this is not the definition of Liberal Christianity, but its
history. And from this point on, it has been abused like many of terms, arts
, politics, culture, etc. Its scope has been expanded so vast that countless
things can be accommodated – people relish the term “liberal” as they
rejoice in problematizing its boundary.
This finding might frustrate friends on this board who seek clean and well
defined terms. If you happen to come across the so called “universally
agreed” definition of Liberal Christians, Christians, or Religions, please
enlighten me. But next time, can you bring something better than Wikipedia
to the table?
徒.
,
every
Christian
【在 r**t 的大作中提到】
: XMWIM,
: I am glad that there’s Chinese willing to call him/herself as 自由派基督徒.
: That’s progress already. But I am not sure your 定义 of 自由派基督徒 is
: following the convention we use in the public.
: To define something as liberal, you have to say “relative to who”. e.g.
: East relative to China is west to USA. In religion, To “KJV only” people,
: every Christian who does not use KJV is liberal. To snake handler, every
: Christian who does not play with snake in his/her worship is liberal.
: So when mainstream media (e.g. CNN, NBC…) uses the term “liberal Christian
: ”, who do they refer to? They use the term “liberal Christian” in a
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 8 不服气到专业宗教研究期刊去发表你的大一统定义呗。
【在 n********n 的大作中提到】
: 这位XMWIMh号称无神论的基督徒, 已经是自由派中的自由派了, 就这么随性 : )。 他
: 所信的已经和宗教信仰无关了。 well, 他可以自定义为宗教信仰, 就像把艺术成为哲
: 学一样。
: Again 就这么随性! 或许今天信的, 明天可以推翻, 不这样怎么体现"自由"呢?
: 另外他确实代表不了自由派, 而是大雜荟中的一个。
:
: 徒.
: ,
: every
: Christian
|
r**t
发帖数: 115 | 9 I used WIki not because it's academic authority. I used it because it
represents the definition most people use.
go back to your definition.
Liberal Christian or Conservative Christian are all Christians.
So your question becomes "Can Christian believe "Jesus is not a God"?"
I know there're tons of definition of a Christian.
But can you find ONE source stating "Christian can believe "Jesus is not a
God"?"
I will be very interested if you can find such definition anywhere.
Mainstream
wide
【在 x***m 的大作中提到】
: Rcet,
: I appreciate hearing your thoughts on liberal Christianity.
: However, with all due respect, I do not see good evidence to corroborate
: your opinions. The Wikipedia page you provided does not say Liberal
: Christianity is used interchangeably with Mainline Protestant or Mainstream
: American Protestant; instead it states that “Mainline churches hold a wide
: range of theologies—conservative, moderate and liberal”. The meticulous
: formula you devised remains as your personal asset until a reliable source
: is furnished, say, a peer-reviewed journal of religious studies.
: So far, you have voiced your opinion but have not “proven” anything.
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 10 你真够无耻的， 一共才20多票， 就说“高达81%的网友”.
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
: 这个傻逼会说，你这是“mainstream media”的定义，不是他的定义。
: 他无视一个概念约定俗成的含义，所以才会有高达81%的网友认为他是个傻逼。
|
|
|
n********n
发帖数: 8336 | 11 谢谢你的证明:
你确实代表不了自由派, 而是大雜荟中的一个。:))
【在 x***m 的大作中提到】
: 不服气到专业宗教研究期刊去发表你的大一统定义呗。
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 12
你以为你懂统计，其实你未必真懂。
你估算一下，一个概率为0.8左右的概率事件，做20多次随机试验，以95%的置信水平来
看置信区间是多少？
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: 你真够无耻的， 一共才20多票， 就说“高达81%的网友”.
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 13 Rcet,
In my humble opinion, opinions from the peer-reviewed journals stand a
better chance of creating a well-rounded picture of public views. To survey
a general attitude is a tough undertaking. To accomplish a less biased and
more reliable investigation requires more expertise and professional
training than laymen's cooperation.
I think the Liberal Christian friends I hang out with are pretty awesome -
their religious knowledge seldom falls short of my expectation. To be honest
, I think it is a common sense, at least within our group, that many
Nontrinitarian Christians do not consider Jesus as God (fig 02).
【在 r**t 的大作中提到】
: I used WIki not because it's academic authority. I used it because it
: represents the definition most people use.
: go back to your definition.
: Liberal Christian or Conservative Christian are all Christians.
: So your question becomes "Can Christian believe "Jesus is not a God"?"
: I know there're tons of definition of a Christian.
: But can you find ONE source stating "Christian can believe "Jesus is not a
: God"?"
: I will be very interested if you can find such definition anywhere.
:
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 14 确实代表不了，当时我还在跟脏文叨沟通时，我就一直强调：很难去概述一个自由派基
督徒的总体特征，甚至连我们自己教会都概括不出来——我的教会朋友中的宗教观，基
督教观等差的实在太远，去别的教会做客时，感觉人家好团结啊。不过这种差异反映出
来的包容、开放、和理性却正是自由派基督教吸引我的地方。
【在 n********n 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢你的证明:
: 你确实代表不了自由派, 而是大雜荟中的一个。:))
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 15 我无比真诚地建议你去看看心理医生。真的！你肯定有病。
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 你以为你懂统计，其实你未必真懂。
: 你估算一下，一个概率为0.8左右的概率事件，做20多次随机试验，以95%的置信水平来
: 看置信区间是多少？
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 16 Your samples are biased man! and your sample size is way too small.
Spinning on this won't help you.
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 你以为你懂统计，其实你未必真懂。
: 你估算一下，一个概率为0.8左右的概率事件，做20多次随机试验，以95%的置信水平来
: 看置信区间是多少？
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 17 Try this:
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
confidence level 95%, confidence interval 5%, population size 20000 (which
is very small compare to the sweeping claim you are making).
You need a sample size of 377. And it has to be truely random.
Your "poll" is ridiculously inaccurate and means nothing.
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 你以为你懂统计，其实你未必真懂。
: 你估算一下，一个概率为0.8左右的概率事件，做20多次随机试验，以95%的置信水平来
: 看置信区间是多少？
|
n********n
发帖数: 8336 | 18 按照这种说法, 自由派已经包括了福音派。一个严守福音派的人完全在自由派范围内。
survey
honest
【在 x***m 的大作中提到】
: Rcet,
: In my humble opinion, opinions from the peer-reviewed journals stand a
: better chance of creating a well-rounded picture of public views. To survey
: a general attitude is a tough undertaking. To accomplish a less biased and
: more reliable investigation requires more expertise and professional
: training than laymen's cooperation.
: I think the Liberal Christian friends I hang out with are pretty awesome -
: their religious knowledge seldom falls short of my expectation. To be honest
: , I think it is a common sense, at least within our group, that many
: Nontrinitarian Christians do not consider Jesus as God (fig 02).
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 19
我没有在本版搞民调，而是去和本版常客没有恩怨的地方搞民调。哪里来的bias?
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: Your samples are biased man! and your sample size is way too small.
: Spinning on this won't help you.
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 20 是你们福音派对这类分类特别感兴趣，老是来找我问归类和条件。对于我，自由派就是
一个标签，这个标签大家都可以贴——我不仅不care谁在谁的范围，而且为这个大杂烩
的现状而感到高兴。
【在 n********n 的大作中提到】
: 按照这种说法, 自由派已经包括了福音派。一个严守福音派的人完全在自由派范围内。
:
: survey
: honest
|
|
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 21 你这个弱智现在能想通了吗？
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 我没有在本版搞民调，而是去和本版常客没有恩怨的地方搞民调。哪里来的bias?
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 22
网上的非学术性估算，没必要要求5%的置信区间。
你还没回答我的问题：
你估算一下，一个概率为0.8左右的概率事件，做20多次随机试验，以95%的置信水平来
看置信区间是多少？
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: Try this:
: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
: confidence level 95%, confidence interval 5%, population size 20000 (which
: is very small compare to the sweeping claim you are making).
: You need a sample size of 377. And it has to be truely random.
: Your "poll" is ridiculously inaccurate and means nothing.
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 23 哈哈哈！很好！你的发言已经伴你的无耻下流展现得淋漓尽致了。
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 网上的非学术性估算，没必要要求5%的置信区间。
: 你还没回答我的问题：
: 你估算一下，一个概率为0.8左右的概率事件，做20多次随机试验，以95%的置信水平来
: 看置信区间是多少？
|
T**E
发帖数: 1892 | 24 你不去竞选总统，真是曲才了。。。。
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 网上的非学术性估算，没必要要求5%的置信区间。
: 你还没回答我的问题：
: 你估算一下，一个概率为0.8左右的概率事件，做20多次随机试验，以95%的置信水平来
: 看置信区间是多少？
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 25
我估计你是真的不太懂概率统计。
比如你要用随机试验来估计一个随机事件的概率，你做多少次随机试验来估算这个概率
？这和你的目标概率是有关系的！0.8左右的概率，二十多次的随机试验作为非正式的
估算那是很不错的了。
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: Try this:
: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
: confidence level 95%, confidence interval 5%, population size 20000 (which
: is very small compare to the sweeping claim you are making).
: You need a sample size of 377. And it has to be truely random.
: Your "poll" is ridiculously inaccurate and means nothing.
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 26 你不仅脑残，连逼也残了。
From <http://www.mitbbs.com/article/TrustInJesus/1070205_0.html>
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 我估计你是真的不太懂概率统计。
: 比如你要用随机试验来估计一个随机事件的概率，你做多少次随机试验来估算这个概率
: ？这和你的目标概率是有关系的！0.8左右的概率，二十多次的随机试验作为非正式的
: 估算那是很不错的了。
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 27 It's time for you to answer THIS question:
To make a claim that "81% netizens believe...", what's the sample size you
need?
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 我估计你是真的不太懂概率统计。
: 比如你要用随机试验来估计一个随机事件的概率，你做多少次随机试验来估算这个概率
: ？这和你的目标概率是有关系的！0.8左右的概率，二十多次的随机试验作为非正式的
: 估算那是很不错的了。
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 28 You are assuming it's 0.8? But how can you make that assumption? Isn't this
0.8 what you want to estimate? Spinning on this only shows your
shamelessness man!
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 我估计你是真的不太懂概率统计。
: 比如你要用随机试验来估计一个随机事件的概率，你做多少次随机试验来估算这个概率
: ？这和你的目标概率是有关系的！0.8左右的概率，二十多次的随机试验作为非正式的
: 估算那是很不错的了。
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 29
我这是非学术性的粗略估算。我认为够了。你认为不够，那么请你回答问题：
我这个估计的置信水平是多少？你能算出来吗？敢说出来吗？
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: It's time for you to answer THIS question:
: To make a claim that "81% netizens believe...", what's the sample size you
: need?
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 30 I already showed you why it's not enough. To make a meaning full claim that
81% of netizens support something, you need a large sample size, I've given
you my proof.
Now it's time for you to show your proof otherwise.
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 我这是非学术性的粗略估算。我认为够了。你认为不够，那么请你回答问题：
: 我这个估计的置信水平是多少？你能算出来吗？敢说出来吗？
|
|
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 31
that
given
你的发言表明你不懂统计！sample size 和你要求的置信区间和置信水平有很大的关系
！懂不懂？？？！！！
网上一个非正式的调查，有什么必要要求5%的置信水平？？？
对了，尽管我为了当晚得到结果限定了三个小时的调查，但是随后又有不上网友参与投
票了。刚才我查看了一下，49票，结果还是81%的人认为这个“自由派基督徒”是个傻
逼。看到没有？21票和49票的结果惊人的一致，这就是概率的魅力！ --- 正如我前面
所说，估算一个概率在0.8左右的随机事件的概率，二十多次随机试验已经不差了！
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: I already showed you why it's not enough. To make a meaning full claim that
: 81% of netizens support something, you need a large sample size, I've given
: you my proof.
: Now it's time for you to show your proof otherwise.
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 32 Jiangbuf, I would discourage you to reason with him. If words from a
statistics major means anything to you, I give you my verdict that he does
not have the slightest clue about statistics.
that
given
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: I already showed you why it's not enough. To make a meaning full claim that
: 81% of netizens support something, you need a large sample size, I've given
: you my proof.
: Now it's time for you to show your proof otherwise.
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 33 Of course I understand that. you admit it's an unofficial survey but it
didn't prevent you from using the result as a fact right? If so, then we
should aim for a lower confidence level isn't it? and i've given you the
benefit of a very small population size right? plus ppl on that board are
well known to be aggressive so it's biased.
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: that
: given
: 你的发言表明你不懂统计！sample size 和你要求的置信区间和置信水平有很大的关系
: ！懂不懂？？？！！！
: 网上一个非正式的调查，有什么必要要求5%的置信水平？？？
: 对了，尽管我为了当晚得到结果限定了三个小时的调查，但是随后又有不上网友参与投
: 票了。刚才我查看了一下，49票，结果还是81%的人认为这个“自由派基督徒”是个傻
: 逼。看到没有？21票和49票的结果惊人的一致，这就是概率的魅力！ --- 正如我前面
: 所说，估算一个概率在0.8左右的随机事件的概率，二十多次随机试验已经不差了！
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 34
我为了当晚得到结果限定了三个小时投票，21张有效票，81%的网友认为这个“自由派
基督徒”是个傻逼。
但随后还是有网友参与了投票。我刚看了一下，49张有效票，还是81%的网友认为这个
“自由派基督徒”是个傻逼。
为什么21张有效票和49张有票的结果惊人的一致？正如我所说，估算一个概率在0.8左
右的随机事件的概率，二十多次的随机试验不差了！！！
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: Of course I understand that. you admit it's an unofficial survey but it
: didn't prevent you from using the result as a fact right? If so, then we
: should aim for a lower confidence level isn't it? and i've given you the
: benefit of a very small population size right? plus ppl on that board are
: well known to be aggressive so it's biased.
:
|
x***m
发帖数: 298 | 35 你这个弱智现在能想通了吗？
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 我为了当晚得到结果限定了三个小时投票，21张有效票，81%的网友认为这个“自由派
: 基督徒”是个傻逼。
: 但随后还是有网友参与了投票。我刚看了一下，49张有效票，还是81%的网友认为这个
: “自由派基督徒”是个傻逼。
: 为什么21张有效票和49张有票的结果惊人的一致？正如我所说，估算一个概率在0.8左
: 右的随机事件的概率，二十多次的随机试验不差了！！！
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 36
笑死！你懂什么是confidence level吗？
可以啊！二十多票，你说说置信区间和置信水平是多少？
粗略的估计，81%左右网友会认为这个“自由派基督徒”是个傻逼。我承认这的确不是
个严谨的统计，但是，如果你有闲功夫去搞一个严谨的统计，结果将和这个粗略的估计
相差不大！我敢肯定这一点。不信你去试试！或者请你去找真正懂行的人问问再说。我
估计你也就是靠google大致了解了一下概率统计，你真的不是很懂！
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: Of course I understand that. you admit it's an unofficial survey but it
: didn't prevent you from using the result as a fact right? If so, then we
: should aim for a lower confidence level isn't it? and i've given you the
: benefit of a very small population size right? plus ppl on that board are
: well known to be aggressive so it's biased.
:
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 37
本人在美国一流名校读博士的时候当过概率统计课（研究生/本科生都可以修的课程）
的TA。
我懂不懂概率统计，不是你说了算。:-)))
【在 x***m 的大作中提到】
: 你这个弱智现在能想通了吗？
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 38 i already said, your samples are biased (people on that board are more
aggressive), so it cannot be accurate. you keep ignoring this.
percentage 80%, confidence level 95%, sample size 50, population size 50000,
confidence interval 11%, if the samples are representative enough though,
which you have no proof.
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 本人在美国一流名校读博士的时候当过概率统计课（研究生/本科生都可以修的课程）
: 的TA。
: 我懂不懂概率统计，不是你说了算。:-)))
|
T**E
发帖数: 1892 | 39 主子你太喜乐了，哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
哈哈哈哈!
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 本人在美国一流名校读博士的时候当过概率统计课（研究生/本科生都可以修的课程）
: 的TA。
: 我懂不懂概率统计，不是你说了算。:-)))
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 40
军版的人和本版的人没有什么恩怨，我认为把军版的人作为样本空间还不错。
看起来你其实不懂概率统计，基本靠google吧？所以我也懒得多说什么。
欢迎你去搞一个更严谨的调查出来。我的判断是：如果你去搞一个更严谨的统计，结果
和我这个粗略的估计差不多！不信你就去搞一个。
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: i already said, your samples are biased (people on that board are more
: aggressive), so it cannot be accurate. you keep ignoring this.
: percentage 80%, confidence level 95%, sample size 50, population size 50000,
: confidence interval 11%, if the samples are representative enough though,
: which you have no proof.
|
|
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 41 you need to prove your sample is representative, not just 我认为
所以我也懒得多说什么 is the best way to escape :)
why should i make another poll? you need to prove your claim, not me. For
example, go create polls in several other boards, and show us it's not just
"我认为"
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 军版的人和本版的人没有什么恩怨，我认为把军版的人作为样本空间还不错。
: 看起来你其实不懂概率统计，基本靠google吧？所以我也懒得多说什么。
: 欢迎你去搞一个更严谨的调查出来。我的判断是：如果你去搞一个更严谨的统计，结果
: 和我这个粗略的估计差不多！不信你就去搞一个。
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 42
just
说过了：这是粗略的估计，这不是严谨的学术研究。
其次，基于本人的学术经验，这个粗略的估计相当不错。
第三，我没必要向你证明什么。调查的帖子摆在那里，能不能说明问题，大家自己判断
就好。懂行的人自然懂，不懂的人说再多都没有。
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: you need to prove your sample is representative, not just 我认为
: 所以我也懒得多说什么 is the best way to escape :)
: why should i make another poll? you need to prove your claim, not me. For
: example, go create polls in several other boards, and show us it's not just
: "我认为"
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 43
因为这样你才会知道你严谨的统计结果和我这个粗略的估计差不多！
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: you need to prove your sample is representative, not just 我认为
: 所以我也懒得多说什么 is the best way to escape :)
: why should i make another poll? you need to prove your claim, not me. For
: example, go create polls in several other boards, and show us it's not just
: "我认为"
|
j******f
发帖数: 228 | 44 You are using the result to personal attack other people right? then you
need to prove the result is reliable no matter you want or not.
one last time, i pointed out your poll is flawed becoz your samples are
biased (people on that board are more aggressive and tend to pa). you have
not shown otherwise besides bragging your "background", which means nothing
in cyberspace.
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 因为这样你才会知道你严谨的统计结果和我这个粗略的估计差不多！
|
z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 45
请分清楚“陈述事实”和“骂人”的区别。
例如，说良家妇女是妓女，这是骂人；说妓女是妓女，这是陈述事实，不是骂人。
别的废话前面已经回答过了。
【在 j******f 的大作中提到】
: You are using the result to personal attack other people right? then you
: need to prove the result is reliable no matter you want or not.
: one last time, i pointed out your poll is flawed becoz your samples are
: biased (people on that board are more aggressive and tend to pa). you have
: not shown otherwise besides bragging your "background", which means nothing
: in cyberspace.
|
J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 46 这个解释好像还挺靠谱。
徒.
,
every
Christian
【在 r**t 的大作中提到】
: XMWIM,
: I am glad that there’s Chinese willing to call him/herself as 自由派基督徒.
: That’s progress already. But I am not sure your 定义 of 自由派基督徒 is
: following the convention we use in the public.
: To define something as liberal, you have to say “relative to who”. e.g.
: East relative to China is west to USA. In religion, To “KJV only” people,
: every Christian who does not use KJV is liberal. To snake handler, every
: Christian who does not play with snake in his/her worship is liberal.
: So when mainstream media (e.g. CNN, NBC…) uses the term “liberal Christian
: ”, who do they refer to? They use the term “liberal Christian” in a
|
J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 47 是啊。不信神的基督徒实在太扯了。liberal对神的信仰可能有点犹豫，模糊，但是如
果他们明确的坚定的不信神，那就不该叫Christian了。
or
【在 r**t 的大作中提到】
: If he/she is 号称无神论的基督徒, then he/she is non- Christian. Liberal or
: conservative is not relevant here.
|
