I didn't ask about the whole thing -- I asked about a "significant part."
But I brought up the example. To refute the example, you have to show that discrimination against Jews in general has gone down due to progressive thought, not just that a component of it has.
Because the real question is which is more consistent with modern progressive political views -- continuing to keep Jews out of the country club or letting them in. I take it you concede that it's the latter?
Now you're asking about whether P(no discrimination|progressive) > P(discrimination|progressive), which is a different question. The answer to this one is also "yes to what you just literally asked".
It's also true that P(no discrimination|not progressive) > P(discrimination|not progressive).
To refute the example, you have to show that discrimination against Jews in general has gone down due to progressive thought, not just that a component of it has.
That may be so, but I was asking a question in order to understand and scrutinize your position. When I ask a question, and instead of just answering it you guess or imagine what argument is behind the question, and then respond to the argument and don't answer the question, it increases the confusion and makes me suspect you are trying to dance around the issues.
...Now you're asking about whet
Suppose I told you that I knew for a fact that the following statements were true:
You’d think I was crazy, right?
Now suppose it were the year 1901, and you had to choose between believing those statements I have just offered, and believing statements like the following:
Based on a comment of Robin Hanson’s: “I wonder if one could describe in enough detail a fictional story of an alternative reality, a reality that our ancestors could not distinguish from the truth, in order to make it very clear how surprising the truth turned out to be.”1
1Source: http://lesswrong.com/lw/j0/making_history_available/ewg.