Talk:Atheists and church attendance

17% is closer to 1/6, not 1/5

1/5 = 20%, 1/6 = 16.66666...% I hope this clarifies matters. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Tuesday, 18:50, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

No, it doesn't really clarify matters. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 20:10, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

*facepalm*. MayGodBless (talk) 20:51, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Yeah, if one is not able to understand simple math, they should register as an asylum undergraduate instead of remaining in the position of a Conservapedia Administrator. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 20:57, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

The sentence is "A new study out of Rice University has found that 17 percent - about one out of five scientists who describe themselves as either atheists or agnostics - actually go to church, although not too often, and not because they feel a spiritual yearning to join the faithful."

The word about means the author is going to round.

The standard rule of rounding is if 4 or below, round down. If 5 or above round up. So using this rule, 17% becomes 20% which is 1/5. Conservative (talk) 21:18, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

[EC] The problem with your argument here is that that would apply if one had to pick between 10% and 20%. However, since you're expressing an estimate in the form of a reciprocal with the dividend being 1, it's much more sensible to round 17% to 1/6, which is only 0.333...% away, instead of 1/5, which is 3% away. I hope this actually clarifies matters. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 21:20, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

There is no problem with my argument. I clarified things. Conservative (talk) 21:22, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Yes, but even with rounding, it's ridiculous to go with a less accurate estimate when a much more accurate figure is available. In this case, 17% is very close to 1/6, but choosing to stick with 1/5 instead is... do I even need to explain? —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 21:23, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

The whole point of rounding is to be less accurate. Checkmate, LT. Conservative (talk) 21:25, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Um, no, the purpose of rounding is to summarize a complicated percentage with a simple fraction. This results in less accuracy, but that isn't the intended purpose unless your intention was to mislead readers with inflated statistics. The problem here is that you had the more accurate option of "one-sixth" but you chose "one-fifth." —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 21:26, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

You were checkmated. Game over. As much as I hate to do so, on behalf of all rounders, I hereby declare total victory. Olé! Olé! Olé! Conservative (talk) 21:30, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Ah, not so fast! Just because you declare an egg hatched doesn't mean the egg actually hatched. These are some quotients of fractions where the dividend is 1:

1. 1/1 = 1
2. 1/2 = 0.5
3. 1/3 = 0.333...
4. 1/4 = 0.25
5. 1/5 = 0.2
6. 1/6 = 0.1666...
7. 1/7 = 0.124857...
8. 1/8 = 0.125
9. 1/9 = 0.111...
10. 1/10 = 0.1

0.17 is only 0.0333... away from 1/6, but 0.3 away from 0.2. It is nine times closer to 1/6! —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 21:32, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

If the purpose of rounding is to be less accurate, why didn't you round 17% to one-half, or ten octillion factorial? That would be even less accurate than 1/5! —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 21:37, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Writers often get paid per writing piece produced. And time is money. Who wants to do all that math for free, when you can round 17% to 20% using the word "about" and then turn that into a fraction of 1/5?

I worked in the financial field in the past so I quickly did the rounding in my head and had no problem with the sentence.

What part of the word "about" don't you understand? To put it in mathematical terms: About = About. Conservative (talk) 21:41, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

"What part of the word "about" don't you understand?" It's misleading. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:47, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Checkmate. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:56, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Writers aren't engineers or physicists. Unlike engineers or physicists, writters don't don't get paid by salary or for high degrees of accuracy. They often get paid by writing piece and time is money.

Rounding = Round. Bada boom. Bada bing. Go on to the next writing assignment. If the dummies among your readers can't understand the word "about" or how to round numbers that's their problem! Conservative (talk) 22:07, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Again, the problem here is that you could've rounded 17% to a much more accurate figure, one-sixth, instead of one-fifth. Even if the exact number was closer to 17.5%, that would be 2.5% away from 1/5 and less than 1% away from 1/6, making the latter more suitable. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 22:04, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Writers are some of the biggest liars and propagandists on the planet. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:27, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

I think you should call the publication, offer to pay the writer to do the math in order to check your accuracy, and then he/she can update the article. Hopefully, the writer/reporter doesn't have deadlines to meet and doesn't blow you off. Conservative (talk) 22:12, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Of course, the publication in question here is ABC News, and liberal media is known for distorting the truth, so I guess it's not surprising to see they got basic math a bit off. The question is why a brilliant conservative editor by the name of User:Conservative would go along with liberalistic poor math skills! —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Wednesday, 22:16, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

It wasn't poor math skills. Writers get paid for efficiency so they or the corporation can make more money. And there are deadlines too. If you want a high degree of accuracy in your reading instead of the word "about", read physics journals and not ABC News pieces! Conservative (talk) 22:25, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

Writers and their editorial staffs aren't very efficient if they can't do simple math. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:28, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

"Writers don't get paid by salary or for high degrees of accuracy." Never were words more truer spoken. Karen Dawisha comes to mind. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:32, October 31, 2023 (EDT)