Sociology implies Bob Murphy is an atheist

A sociological study finds that the majority of libertarians are atheists. (I think this might be true, but let us just suppose it is.)

Now I turn my attention to Bob Murphy, and discover that he is a libertarian. I write, "Sociology implies that Bob Murphy is an atheist, but I have discovered that he is a theist!"

I present this as a refutation of sociology.

From the comments he has posted recently, apparently Bob thinks that this is a valid form of reasoning. And not only is it valid, I am 100%, unequivocally wrong when I object to it.



  1. OK if you want to go this route, I can't stop you. But if you ever write anything like, "Evolutionary psychology says such-and-such, but in reality..." I am going to pounce.

    1. I am not clear what "route" I am going. Is this not a close analogy to the basketball example?