Salutatio Fredric!
11-Apr-98, Fredric Rice wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: In Prison
 FR>> During the research I did for a newsletter, I got to talk to a
 FR>> number of prison officials.
 rm>> Could you throw a reasonable guesstimate at me?
 FR> A guess about what, specifically?  As to why atheists are
 FR> under-represented by number and percentage in the prison system?
 FR> Or a guess as to what percentage atheists are in the prison
 FR> system?
No, a rough figure of how many "officials" you contacted that gave you 
feedback.  Y'see, as it is, you could have gotten feedback from any 
number of officals over two.  
 FR>> The most reasonable explanation I got for this fact was one
 FR>> warden's sugggestion that since most offenses are drug related
 FR>> and atheists perfer their reality straight up, the prison system
 FR>> ends up filled with people who need to use drugs.
 rm>> It sounds reasonable, perhaps quite logical, but what were some
 rm>> of the other explanations you got that you did not consider that
 rm>> "reasonable"?  I ask this because one person's non-reason can be
 rm>> another's reason,... never know.
 FR> Few prison officals were willing to offer an opinion.  The one I
 FR> offered above is included in my report since it made the most
 FR> sense.  Of the rest who did offer their opinions, they included
 FR> the possibility that religion is the result of poor education
 FR> which is likewise the result of poverty.
                              
Any more?  Or is that all?  BTW, I really would like to have the numbers
of those you contacted, those who refused to comment, and those who did
comment.
 FR> Poverty drives people to steal -- but so does wealth; it's just
 FR> that those with the money can buy their way out of prison.
 FR> Since most criminals are in for drug offenses, however, I retained
 FR> that reason as the most probable for the most number of inmates.
I am sorry, but I cannot take your data and conclusions seriously with
out knowing how extensive your research was, and how much data you
accumulated.
 FR>> That still doesn't account for the lack of nearly any atheist in
 FR>> prison. The prisons should contain anywhere from 18% to 22%
 FR>> atheists since they "service" a populace comprised of anywhere
 FR>> from 18% to 22% atheists.
 rm>> I am sure there must be some atheists in prison.  How extensive
 rm>> was your research?  Please be specific and detailed.
 FR> I can forward to you a copy of Green Pastures issue number 017 if
 FR> you like.  Since it's lengthy (it contains mail from Christian and
 FR> Jewish "outreach" organizations) I could post only extracta here.
 FR> Yet I would be happy to forward it to any FidoNet or Internet
 FR> address you offer, complete and in HTML format.
By email, please.  Is this document your actual report?  Does it have
all the source material detailed?
 FR>> religious "needs."  The data isn't the result of some "study"
 FR>> where a small percentage of the already-in-prison populace is
 FR>> asked what their occultism is, if any...  It's information
 FR>> written onto forms at the time of incarceration.
 rm>> I understand.  Should we not, then find other ways to get more
 rm>> data?
 FR> The only way to determine whether someone is Jewish, Buddhist,
 FR> Christian, Islamic, et al. is to _ask_ them.  I can think of no
 FR> more accurate method for accumulating such information.
Okay, so it is possible that my hypothesis of fearing more time in
prison for not being theistic can be correct.
 rm>> I mean, you have a theory that theists either are the only ones
 rm>> that resort to crime, or that theists are not as smart as
 rm>> atheists.
 FR> No, I don't.  I don't know where you came up with that.
You stated words to the effect that atheists are either not doing crimes
or are smarter than theists for not getting caught.  So, if you say that
atheists are not doing crimes, then theists are the only ones that do; 
also, if you state that atheists are too smart to get caught, then 
theists are not smart enough to not get caught, thus atheists are
smarter than theists.  If black is not white, then white is not black.
 FR> There's no "theory," no "study," no "hypotheist," or anything else
 FR> other than the fact that atheists are vastly under-represented in
 FR> the American prison system.
     
You had the hypothesis that atheists  are under-represented in prison, 
you then went and got data to support you hypothesis.  Thus you have a 
crude theory happening here.
 FR> While it's true that I suggested it
 FR> was possible that atheists either don't committ crimes else are
 FR> smarter than theists, I don't want to be misconstrued as holding
 FR> forth on that; I would rather point out the facts of the matter
 FR> and observe how theists react.
 
You set out to prove an idea you had (ie. that atheists are 
under-represented in prisons), you then concluded that atheists are 
either smarter for not getting caught or are not doing crimes (and it 
follows that if atheists are smarter than theists, theists are not as
smart as atheists - and also if atheists do not do crimes, then theists 
are, thus theists are not as moral as atheists).  It sounds like a 
theory to me:
theory  n.set of ideas formulated to explain something; opinion,
          supposition; statement of the principles of a subject
          (Oxford dictionary)
 rm>> In order to support a theory one MUST try to discredit that
 rm>> theory. The repeated failure to do so provides support, BUT only
 rm>> if one continues to try discrediting the theory, right?
 FR> Quite correct...  if I were advancing a theory I would provide
 FR> along side of it a series of falsification tests which could
 FR> discredit it.  Since I'm advancing no theories about the fact of
 FR> prison inmate geographics, I have not attempted to provide such a
 FR> list.                   
Well, in light of all the above (including the definition of "theory") 
you have in fact advanced a "theory".
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------