Data document the often confounding way that the gun control and gun ownership problems, and resulting massive deaths, occur today in the US (and world), exemplified in [1].
However, we take the view that this is a collective behavior, which cannot be understood by statistics; although it seems to correlate with statistical measures, they are confounding.
The PFCB theory [2-3] has been presenting a theory which explains many cases of collective behavior by understanding it as a liquid, not as a gas, in Physics.
Thus, statistics is not to be used to explain the problem. Even though insight can be found by working with the statistics and correlations, they do not present the causation (which is determined by the structure, hidden to the view).
The hypothesis is that the gun problem in the US is a case of rheopecty, where a fluid thickens or solidifies when shaken. Mutatis, mutandis, in collective social behavior, it's better to avoid going into the rheopectic regime, as that is undesirable in this case. In lubricants, that may be desirable, as in the synovial fluid.
In the theory, the Physics of Fluids Applied to Collective Behavior (PFCB) [2-3], it also explains and guides in achieving the desirable changes.
The Deborah number, as used in physics fluids, could be used to explain and predict how the gun problem in the US will be solved, and when. Part of this answer was copied to RG [3].
In sharing this question, I hope to give a perspective that is based on an objective view, as that is easier to discuss and verify, compared to personal views.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could_social_collective_behavior_be_well-modelled_by_fluid_physics
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_would_collective_behavior_be_naturally_difficult_to_change_and_how_to_improve_the_odds_for_change
It is a well-known that statistics for two variables cannot determine causation but only correlation. It is less known that with three or more variables one can use statistics to make causal inference. It is done by the theory of Bayesian networks and similar graphical models.
Mass-shootings is a social disease that is spread by talking about the problem. Instead of discussing that problem I will recommend the Danish system of handling overwhelming existential problems. We shoot ourselves instead of shooting others.
Hello Peter,
Inference is not deduction, inference has a non-zero variance with arbitrary radius, it can be entirely off. It is well-know that statistical methods, with any number of variables, cannot produce a result with zero variance; zero probability only existing as a an empty or chance limit.
Conversely, there is no statistical law of conervation of momentum-- it is an exact deduction, with zero variance, a global law, that is absolute (in spite of its relative measurements of components, as they must be) [1].
Not discussing the problem, as you wrote, ia a valid option to avoid retaliation and rheopectic effects. It's one we can use, as a personal view of events. It is supported by the PFCB theory, as well.
However, objectively discussing how the physics of fluids can be applied, as a law on nature, is not rheopectic in today's society. We have the academic freedom to entertain that PFCB theory is valid.
What the question implies is this latter case, that there is a natural law given in PFCB terms, that, eventually, makes everything flow, even that what we consider as solid as a mountain. Then, the question remaining is not if it will happen, because it will, but how we can help bring it about sooner?
Cheers, Ed Gerck
[1] For example, see the UCSD video at http://ollidev.ucsd.edu/videos/videoPlayer.cfm?vid=204582756
One may consider a situation where there is no uncertainty and in such a situation it may be relevant to discuss causation, but in most cases where causation is discussed some variables are latent. Latency creates statistical uncertainty and Bayesian networks and similar graphical models are exactly the right tools to handle the such statistical problems.
Hello Peter,
If the probability is one or zero, then no statistical models can be used, including Bayesian or frequentist. Also, deduction leads to a firm conclusion, but inference may be completely false (we just don't know, even if verified experimentally -- the model may be at fault, not the data itself).
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Hello Wolfgang,
Thank you. I invited you because I thought, mainly, that the 4th-side, the ethics, would interest you. Frequently, ethics is challenged to find support, for example, on natural behavior. In this case, European countries, such as yours, may base the ethics of gun control in the US, not on constitutionally perceived rights, but on human rights.
On the other hand, often in the discussions, the usual statistical model appears, for example, as used in the kinetic theory gases, a theory with features analogous to those that characterize the notion of universality in statistical physics.
None of the works that I could find, however, used the physics of fluids, where statistics can be used but is a second fiddle. To contrast, the statistical physics model deal with quantities that are predictable per se, ignoring the reasons for their influence or their effects if not statistical.
In physics of fluids, or rheology, the reasons for rheopectic (e.g.) behavior are based on a model of cause-effect that goes back deductively to basic conservation laws, not expectation-effect models that use statistics and ensembles chosen quite arbitrarily. This precludes the common (correct) criticisms of the use of statistical methods, e.g., of being non-deductional and that "expectation is not causation", and, at the same time, presents a cause-effect model that is deductive and seems to be missing in social collective studies, as offered in the non-statistical physics of fluids.
So, your point #1 may be divided in at least two, statistics (as in the physics of gases) and rheology (which we used). The latter seems more promising to model social collective behavior, and provide support for ethical studies based on cause-effect.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics