trentmkelly/rationalwiki huggingface dataset:
Regression fallacy

{{lognav}}
A '''regression fallacy''' is a logical [[fallacy]] that occurs when an extreme value of some randomly varying event (something exceptional) is accepted as the normal value, and so when the value [[Regression toward the mean|regresses to the mean]], this change is believed to have been caused by some other event.

The fallacy is a [[causation fallacy]] and an [[informal fallacy]].

==Example==
: "Approximately 3,000 people were killed in the U.S. due to [[terrorism]] in 2001. There were twelve such deaths in 2002. This shows that techniques to prevent terrorism were massively improved after 2001."

This is fallacious. Historically, deaths due to terrorism in the U.S. are rare events, and therefore, after a major spike in the [[statistics]], it is to be expected that there is a regression toward the mean: that the next year's figures would be more like the historical norm.

==Explanation==
In general, [[Correlation does not imply causation|moving from a mere statistical correlation (or negative correlation) to proof of cause and effect is tricky]]. In the above example, anti-terrorist measures may indeed have played a role in preventing major attacks in 2002, but the statistics alone are only very weak evidence for this.

==See also==
*[[Correlation does not imply causation]]

==External links==
*{{wpa|Regression fallacy}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Causation fallacies]]

Categories: Causation fallacies
Relevance logic

{{logicnav}}
'''Relevance logic''', also known as '''relevant logic''', is a group of systems of non-classical logic which attempt to resolve the [[paradox]]es of the conditional.<ref group="note">Some authors refer to them as ‘paradoxes of material ''implication''’, but this is a use-mention confusion: ‘implication’ is a concept that belongs to the metalanguage where it is mentioned— not used. Implication is generally explicated as syntactic entailment or semantic entailment.</ref>

The classical definition of the conditional ‘if p, then q’ is [[truth]]-functional: only the truth values of the antecedent ‘p’ and the consequent ‘q’ matter. The conditional is ''false'', if and only if , ‘p’ is true and ‘q’ is false. So, if ‘p’ is false (regardless of whether ‘q’ is true), then the conditional is still true, this is called a vacuous truth. For example, the following is true according to material implication: "If the [[Earth]] has two moons, then [[JFK]] was never assassinated". Since the antecedent is false, the conditional is true, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the consequent. However, most would say, intuitively, that this implication is false, [[Non sequitur|since the two statements have nothing to do with each other]]. Relevance logic attempts to capture formally this intuitive idea, that the premises must be relevant to the conclusion for the conditional to be true. But as a result, the relevant conditional is not truth-functional: the truth or falsehood of the antecedent and consequent does not determine whether the conditional is true.

One attempt to form a notion of implication which better reflects our naive ideas of the meaning of "implies" is strict implication. Strict implication interprets "A implies B" as meaning "necessarily, A implies B", or "in all possible worlds, A implies B". Whereas material implication would consider "If the Earth has two moons, then JFK was never assassinated" true, strict implication would suggest that statement is false, since (arguably) there is some possible world in which the Earth had two moons, yet the JFK assassination still happened.<ref group="note">Also, if, somehow, in the real world it turned out that there was a second moon all along and we just missed it, it wouldn't raise JFK from the dead.</ref> But, consider another statement "If 1+1=3, then JFK was never assassinated". Strict implication would consider this true, since the same statement (interpreted according to material implication) is true in all possible worlds, since there is no possible world in which 1+1=3 was true. But relevant implication would reject that implication as false, since the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion. Thus may relevant and strict implication be distinguished.
== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==See also==
*''[[Non sequitur]]''
Religion of Peace

{{languagenav}}{{expand}}
{{cquote|It is [[Infidel|he whose loss is laughter when he counts the wager worth]],<br/>
[[Massacres in the name of a peaceful faith|Put down your feet upon him]], that our peace be on the earth.|4=G.K. Chesterton, illustrating what "peace" means in this context<ref>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lepanto_%28Chesterson%29</ref>}}
'''"The Religion of Peace"''' is a phrase often used to describe [[Islam]]. It is widely used as an [[ironic]] [[Loaded language|snarl term]] by people who believe that Islam is anything but peaceful.

==Origins==
The phrase appears to have been coined by [[Malaysian]] Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamad, who stated in 2002 that "Islam does not promote [[terrorism]]. Islam is a religion of peace."<ref>[http://asiasociety.org/islam-terrorism-and-malaysias-response Islam, Terrorism and Malaysia's Response]</ref> A very similar statement was made by [[George W. Bush]] the previous year, however, when he argued that "Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace."<ref>http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html</ref>

Despite the Bush connection, literal (as opposed to ironic) usage of the phrase appears to be generally attributed to the political [[Leftism|left]].

==Other Religions of Peace==
In deciding whether Islam is a religion of peace or not, it is instructive to compare the history of [[Islam]] and [[pacifist]]ic Muslim sects such as the [[Ahmadiyya]] and the Mouride [[Sufi]] order with that of the traditional peace churches whose members similarly [[Pacifism|renounce war entirely]], such as the [[Amish]] and other Mennonite sects, as well as the [[Quaker]]s. Notably, both the Ahmadiyyas and the Sufis are considered [[Apostasy|apostate]] by many other Muslims. On the other hand, the most well-known Quaker is one [[Richard Nixon|Richard N]] from [[California]], and the Mennonites had to repeatedly flee "Christian" rulers who wanted to force them into military service or worse. This is one of the reasons why people in quaint clothing with a fair complexion speaking a Germanic language are a rather common sight in Belize.

[[Buddhism]] is often reckoned a religion of peace, but Buddhist monks have been involved in the persecution of Muslims in [[Myanmar]] and {{wpl|Sri Lanka||,}} as well as supporting [[Japan]]ese militarism in [[World War II]].<ref>{{wpl|Buddhism in Japan}}</ref><ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/19/world/asia/sri-lanka-muslim-aluthgama/ "Fear, shock among Sri Lankan Muslims in aftermath of Buddhist mob violence"], CNN, June 24, 2014</ref>

[[Christianity]] is sometimes claimed to be a religion of peace, a statement often greeted with rolled eyes since Christianity's history in this regard is as much a mixed bag (if not more, considerating Christianity predates Islam by several centuries) as Islam's.

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{stub|Islam}}

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Islamophobia]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Categories: Islam, Islamophobia, Religion
Religious pluralism

{{religion}}
'''Religious pluralism''' is a policy stating that all [[religion]]s and belief systems (theistic, non-theistic, ''etc.'') are in essentials equally valid and there is no reason why they should not co-exist with one another.

==Pluralistic traditions==
There are several religious traditions that explicitly affirm a pluralistic worldview, including [[Unitarian Universalism]] (originating in [[Christianity]]) and the [[Bahá'í]] faith (originating in [[Islam]]).

Also, many pre-Abrahamic [[Paganism|pagan]] traditions, although not explicitly pluralistic, did not maintain that their particular cult was the "one true faith" in exclusion of all others.<ref group=note>Though given that they tended to be tied to the specific people who practiced them, why would they need to?</ref>

==Criticism of religious pluralism==
Religious pluralism may deny the existence of absolute truth, holding that, in contravention of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's quip, people are entitled to their own facts as well as their own opinions. This can lead to the belief that [[crank]] ideas are just as valid as [[Empiricism|empirical]] and [[logic]]al facts.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-pluralism/</ref>

Specifically, religious pluralism may be used to promote [[anti-science]] ideas, since it can convince people that scientific topics ([[evolution]], [[global warming]], [[gluon]]s) and science as a whole is [[Presuppositionalism|another point of view or belief system and not absolute fact]].<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/lie/articles/lie/evolution-religion</ref>

Another issue is that religious pluralism grants equal validity to religious traditions that do not themselves accept religious pluralism. In addition to the obvious potential for [[Paradox of tolerance|paradox-of-tolerance]] problems, this has led to such phemonena as [[Islam]]ic fundamentalists and some religious pluralists agreeing on an agenda of banning certain criticisms of Islam,{{efn|We'd like to say that this specifically applies to the… [[Islamophobia|''less reasonable'']] criticisms of Islam, but we can't confirm that to be the case (and given the involvement of fundies and what [[Wahhabism|fundamentalist Islam]] is known to do to [[Apostasy|apostates]] and [[infidel]]s, we have to seriously doubt it).}} under labels such as "[[defamation of religion]]".{{fact}}

==See also==
*[[Ecumenism]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Religion]]

Categories: Religion
Remus Cernea

[[File:Remus Cernea.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Remus Cernea.]]
'''Remus Cernea''' (1974-) (Romanian pronunciation: /'remus 't͡ʃerne̯a/) is a [[Romania]]n activist, [[agnostic]], former [[politician]], and advocate for the [[separation of church and state]]. For instance, in 2004, the government of Romania planned the demolition of a park in order to make way for a [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Romanian Orthodox]] church, and Cernea launched a successful campaign to oppose the demolition.<ref>[http://remuscernea.ro/2009/11/sarbatorim-5-ani-de-la-salvarea-parcului-carol/ Sărbătorim 5 Ani de la Salvarea Parcului Carol!] Nov 13th, 2009.</ref>

Entering electoral politics, Remus was nominated as the candidate for the [[Green Party]] of Romania for the 2009 Presidential Election.<ref>[http://www.mediafax.ro/politic/remus-cernea-si-a-lansat-candidatura-la-presedintie-4812950  Remus Cernea şi-a lansat candidatura la Preşedinţie], Mediafax.ro.</ref> However, later some Green Party members claimed he would "lead the Green Party under [[Satanist]] principles" and "turn the party into a [[homosexual]] one",<ref>[http://www.ecomagazin.ro/verzii-s-au-lepadat-de-remus-cernea-pentru-ca-este-pro-gay-si-pro-satanism/ Verzii s-au lepadat de Remus Cernea pentru ca este pro-gay si pro-satanism], 14 November 2010.</ref> so he left it some time afterwards and started his own party, the Green Movement. He ran for deputy of a district (though not as a Green Movement candidate) and won with 57.23% of the votes, serving from 2012 to 2016.<ref>[http://www.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/locale/cine-sunt-cei-mai-votati-politicieni-287084.html  Cine sunt cei mai votaţi politicieni], Romania Libera, 12 December 2012.</ref> In the Romanian Parliament, Cernea chose to swear on the Constitution rather than (as is usual) the [[Bible]].<ref>[http://www.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/politica/deputatul-remus-cernea-nu-a-vrut-sa-jure-pe-biblie-in-parlament-287980.html  Deputatul Remus Cernea NU a vrut să JURE pe Biblie în Parlament], Romania Libera, 20 December 2012.</ref>.

==External links==
*[http://remuscernea.ro/ His website] (In Romanian)

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Cernea, Remus}}
{{stub|politicians}}
[[Category:Agnostics]]
[[Category:European politicians]]
[[Category:Romania]]
[[Category:Living people]]

Categories: Agnostics, European politicians, Romania, Living people
Response bias

{{psychology}}
'''Response bias''' is the name of a group of [[cognitive biases]] which commonly influence the results of surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and polls. Like [[statistics]], it's a great way to [[lie]] while still being honest, although [[Hanlon's razor|honest mistakes]] are also common.

==Types==
===Acquiescence bias===
Acquiescence bias is the tendency for [[human|people]] to respond positively ("yeah, sure") to survey questions when in doubt.

For example, 55% of respondents agree and 42% disagree with the statement, "The best way to ensure peace is through military strength", but when given the choice between the former and "{{wpl|Diplomacy}} is the best way to ensure peace", only 33% agree with the first statement, and 55% percent agree with the second.<ref name="pew">http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/questionnaire-design/</ref>

The Pew Research Center recommends that it is better practice to offer respondents a choice between alternative statements, than to simply ask whether they agree with something.<ref name="pew"/>

===Social desirability bias===
Respondents eschew answers that are considered socially undesirable. This is especially common on topics such as [[drugs]], [[immigration]], personal finances, health, [[religion]], [[sex]], and personal achievements.

Some examples:

*About 15% of [[US]] males report visiting a prostitute at least once in their life, but other surveys also show that men report a lot more sexual partners than women do, so something doesn't add up here. Once you account for the prostitution, the numbers ''do'' seem to add up, though, and you end up with about 23% of males who've paid for sex.<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17351/ Prostitution and the sex discrepancy in reported number of sexual partners]</ref>
*Responses will differ on topics such as [[feminism]] or [[sex]] depending on the gender of the researcher (especially when the participant is male).

===Demand characteristics===
This is the tendency of participants to (subconsciously) fit their behaviour to what is perceived to be the expected or desired behaviour.

Some examples:

*Rape myths were more accepted when the researcher was dressed conservatively than when the researcher was dressed provocatively.<ref>[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J056v13n01_03 Paradoxical Effect of Surveyor's Conservative versus Provocative Clothing on Rape Myth Acceptance of Males and Females]</ref>
*When informed that the survey's interest was menstrual cycle symptoms, women reported significantly more negative symptoms than women who were not told the survey's interest.<ref>http://sociologyindex.com/demand_characteristic.htm</ref>

===Extreme responding===
The tendency to only select the most extreme responses in a survey where one is expected to choose from a scale (eg. to choose "Strongly agree" over "somewhat agree").

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Cognitive biases}}
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Cognitive biases]]

Categories: Philosophy of science, Cognitive biases
Restoration movement

{{Christianity}}{{sources needed}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with the [[United Church of Christ]]}}

The '''Restoration Movement''' is a [[Christian]] movement started in the early 19th century by the '''Campbellites''', who believed all the churches had fallen into apostasy and they were restoring the original church (sound familiar?).  They reject the term '[[denomination]]' and often insist the correct rendering of their name is 'church [or churches] of Christ', leaving church uncapitalized.  They hold beliefs close to most other evangelical Christians', but are perhaps best known for their rejection of the use of musical instruments in church services, because they are not specifically mentioned in the [[New Testament]], so whatever you do make sure to set your cellphone to vibrate; don't leave it on ring tone.

The Campbellite movement was also known as the Stone-Campbell and some scholars group the ''churches of Christ'', and several other new religious movements of the 19th century (such as [[Mormonism]] and [[Seventh-day Adventism]]), in the separate category of [[Restorationism]], distinct from [[Protestantism]].  

One of their early leaders in the 1800s was David Lipscomb, who has seen renewed interest lately for his individualist [[anarchism]] and [[Christian pacifism]] views, neither of which appears to be influential at all in the modern Church of Christ.

==Related liberal denominations==
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is a rather tame mainline denomination with Campbellite roots.

==Unrelated liberal denominations==
The {{wpl|United Church of Christ|United Church of Christ}} is a theologically and socially liberal denomination with no relation to the Church of Christ.  They used to be known as the Congregational Church.

==Another unrelated denomination (not so much liberal)==
{{main|Christian Science}}
The Church of Christ, Scientist has a similar name, but despite the "scientist" part, it doesn't actually involve real [[science]], with its followers rejecting modern medicine in favor of [[prayer|praying]] sickness away... well, ''trying to'', anyway.

==Nuttery-buttery splinter movements==
[[Peter J. Peters]] is a Church of Christ minister who holds beliefs more in line with [[Christian Identity]].

[[Mormonism]] has some roots in the Campbellite movement.  Sidney Rigdon, one of [[Joseph Smith, Jr.]]'s close associates, had been a Campbellite before converting,<ref>{{wpa| Sidney Rigdon}}</ref> and many of [[Joseph Smith, Jr. | Joseph Smith]]'s early Mormon converts came from the Campbellites, including some entire congregations who converted ''en masse''.  Smith called his early Mormon church the "Church of Christ", before tacking on the more ostentatious bits.

The [[Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ]] was the work of a Church of Christ minister who claimed he obtained the text from the [[Akashic Records]].

The [[Boston Church of Christ]] is a related denomination best known for the [[Discipling and Shepherding]] movement.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Christian denominations]]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Categories: Christian denominations, Christianity
Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design

{{crenav}}{{title-italics}}
'''''Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design''''' is an [[intelligent design]] book written by [[Hindu creationist]]s Leif A. Jensen and [[Michael Cremo]] with contributions from [[intelligent design]] advocates [[William Dembski]], [[Jonathan Wells]] and [[Michael Behe]]. It was published by the [[ISKCON]] Bhaktivedanta Book Trust in 2011.<ref>[http://www.rethinkingdarwin.com/ Rethinking Darwin]</ref>

==Overview==

Leif A. Jensen (Lalitanatha Dasa) and Michael Cremo discuss the [[Hindu]] view of creationism whilst rejecting [[evolution]]. They claim that a cosmic mind (Brahma) accounts for the design in nature whilst Dembski, Wells and Behe reject evolution and give arguments for [[intelligent design]] from [[biochemistry]], the [[fossil record]] and [[biology]].<ref>[http://blservices.com/rethinking-darwin Rethinking Darwin Overview at Bhaktivedanta Library services]</ref><ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/leif-jensen-examines-intelligent-design-from-a-vedic-perspective/ Leif Jensen examines intelligent design from a Vedic perspective]</ref> The book also contains chapters on [[consciousness]] studies, [[reincarnation]], [[paranormal]] phenomena, and ends with a final chapter proposing a [[Vedic]] understanding of how life began in opposition to naturalistic processes.<ref>[http://www.bbt.se/publication_others_RD.html Rethinking Darwin by Leif A. Jensen]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{crebox}}

[[Category:Intelligent design creationism]]
[[Category:Religious books]]
[[Category:Hinduism]]
{{stub|books}}

Categories: Intelligent design creationism, Religious books, Hinduism
Revelation Theory of Creation

{{crenav}}
The '''Revelation Theory''' is an obscure variant of [[Old Earth Creationism]] which asserts that the days as outlined in Genesis 1 are in fact not days of creation but days in which God ''revealed'' to Adam about the creation that had happened long before.

==Wait, what?==

The "Revelation Theory" was developed by Assyriologist P. J. Wiseman in his book ''Creation Revealed in Six Days'' (1946). The theory is directly linked to Wiseman's idea that the authors of Genesis were the early patriarchs themselves, who wrote on tablets and passed these down, citing ''toledothes'' throughout Genesis as evidences of tablet colophons. Based on this interpretation of the structure of Genesis, Wiseman argues that God directly revealed to Adam through a relevation over six literal 24 hour days the creation (as outlined in Gen. 1: 1 - 2: 4b or "Tablet 1"), but which had occurred millions if not billions of years ago. While Wiseman in his book does not dispute scientific consensus regarding the age of the earth or universe, he denies evolution, claiming that God created all life forms in their "kinds". However Wiseman claims that Adam is the author of Gen. 1, having been revealed information about the creation by God over six literal days (he does not attempt to date when this revelation occurred). He argues though that this information about the creation is not specific or detailed because the Genesis creation narrative was entirely written by man, who merely could only record limited details from memory and on tablet. He concludes by asserting that science can fill in the gaps of the creation but that Gen. 1 shows God was the "originator and controller" of the creation.

==Support and criticism==

P. J. Wiseman's son, Donald Wiseman,<ref>{{wpa | Donald Wiseman}} </ref> later developed the idea, republishing ''Creation Revealed in Six Days'' in 1977 (with an added foreword), and producing an article in 1991. The concept has not, however, received any notable support. Livingstone (1992) briefly discusses it in a single footnote, while other [[creationists]] have completely ignored it, largely on the grounds of its excessive  materialism (claiming Adam as the author of Genesis 1 as opposed to God). Revelation Theory is probably the most sincere form of Biblical creationism attempting to appear rational, but still in the end completely fails.

Perhaps creationists have seen the potential problem(s) with Adam as the author of Genesis 1.  The [[Tower of Babel]] would render whatever Adam wrote unintelligible, which would require God to reinterpret the contents back to other prophets.

== References == 
{{reflist}}

==Sources==

* Wiseman, P. J. (1946). ''Creation Revealed in Six Days''. Marshall, Morgan & Scott: London.
* Wiseman, P. J. (1977). ''Clues to Creation in Genesis''. Marshall, Morgan & Scott: London.
* Wiseman, Donald (1991). "Creation Time—What does Genesis Say?". ''Science & Christian Belief''. 3[1]. pp. 25-34.
* Livingstone, David N. (1992). "The Preadamite Theory and the Marriage of Science and Religion". Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 1-78.
{{crebox}}