A statistician was asked to test the hypothesis, H0: Terrorism has no religion. The statistician demarcates the concerned population size, draws a large sample space runs the t-test at 99.9 % confidence interval and hypothesis H0 gets rejected. As the population in this context, consists of terror driven demographics, this was inevitable.
The same statistician was asked again to test the hypothesis, H0: Religion has nothing to do with terrorism. The statistician demarcates the concerned population size, draws a large sample space runs the t-test at 99.9 % confidence interval and he fails to reject the hypothesis H0. As the population in this context, consists of typical social demographics independent of any inclination towards religion and sect, the statistician observed the same distribution of criminality over whole space. It had people from Syria, it had people from Mumbai, It had people from New York, It had people from Iraq and hence inference was inevitable.
The point is there are two school of thoughts. Believers of "Terrorism has no religion" are actually testing the second hypothesis, while believers of "Terrorism do have a religion" are actually testing the first hypothesis.
So this debate is never between religion and terrorism, the debate is actually between choice of sample space, the debate is actually between choice of population, the debate is actually between choice of hypothesis.
Comments
Post a Comment