Probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-03-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 12:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Star crash, If an atheist says to me he is very skeptical of a claim of a miracle simply on the basis that all other miracles he's looked at turned out to have natural expkainations, I cannot take exception to his reasoning.

The marble example was employed to show that the reasoning of the atheist is correct.

I'm not trying to prove miracles, but rather show this line of thinking isn't flawed. I will use this line of thinking in another thread.
I think this is where we're headed...

Heywood's argument on this thread, which he has let the rest of us make for him, is: You cannot exclude the possibility of a black marble in the next draw (supernatural explanation for an event) because you have drawn nothing but white marbles (all incidents up to this point have natural explanations.)


Heywood's next thread/argument using what most have already said here is: You cannot rule out the next apparently unexplainable incident as NOT being a miracle simply because none of the previous ones haven't been.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 01:32 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 01:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 01:07 PM)darthbreezy Wrote:  Statistics and probabilities predict nothing. I could let green marbles = hamster and white marbles = human, draw one thousand green marbles, and still be human, regardless of the color of any remaining marbles.



They are tools to allow people to modify thier actions based on what they think will likely occur. An atheist might not see any need to investigate a new claim of a miracle because he predicts, using probability an statistics, that this new claim will end up like all the others he's investigated. The atheist has good cause to dismiss the claim on its face.
Not just Atheists. Everyone with half a brain would know better than to accept blindly that which is absurd and irrational.
Also, I never said they were useless, stats and probability. I live in an area that has statistically fewer accidents and major crimes than other cities its size, which was good to know when I planned to move here from a small town and is applicable to my life. I'm just reminding you that the burden of proof is on the person claiming to know god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 01:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 01:16 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The "one in 600 chance" describes out understanding of its current path and the uncertainty about it. Meaning that while our current understanding leads us towards the belief that it will not strike Mars, there are unknown variables that make that prediction impossible to make at 100% accuracy.

It describes its path and our understanding of its path. You then use that information to make a prediction of whether it will or won't, but the statistics and probabilities do not.

That is because reality is that it either will hit (1) or it won't hit (0), but that is an unknown until it occurs and then we can say that it did (1) or did not(0).

You still did not answer my question as to whether or not you had read anything I had written prior to today. Drinking Beverage

I did read what you had to say but didn't find it meaningful. I agree the composition of the bin is such that it either contains all white marbles or it does not. However reality doesn't stand in the way of us making meaningful statements about what the likey composition of the bin is going to be. Probability and statistics don't make predictions, but they are tools which allow us to make accurate predictions.
"However reality doesn't stand in the way of us making meaningful statements about what the likey composition of the bin is going to be."

I did not say that it did. We can make a prediction, but it may not reflect reality. You have no way of knowing what the reality is unless you take all the marbles out, but you can't do that with nature, so we can only describe what we observe and exclude that which we do not.

"Probability and statistics don't make predictions.."


When I first asked you if they did, you said the opposite. Glad something got through.


"...but they are tools which allow us to make accurate predictions."


No. They are descriptors of what we have observed. We then use our understanding of reality to make predictions, but our predictions cannot be demonstrated false or true until such time as they are observed to be true, as one can never prove a false prediction or prove something false based on the lack of an observation.

It is certainly true that people misuse statistics and probabilities to try and make predictions, and a lot of them lose it all when they bet on black.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
14-03-2013, 01:44 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 01:21 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 01:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  An atheist might not see any need to investigate a new claim of a miracle because he predicts, using probability an statistics, that this new claim will end up like all the others he's investigated.
And this thread clearly demonstrates that no one here but you would use that method to determine whether or not an alleged "miracle" can be explained naturally.

The method is not a means of investigating. It is a means to determine if you should bother investigating it or spend your time brushing your grandmother's dog's teeth instead. It is valid thinking that substantiates the assumption that all preported miracles have natural explanations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 01:47 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 01:30 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 12:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Star crash, If an atheist says to me he is very skeptical of a claim of a miracle simply on the basis that all other miracles he's looked at turned out to have natural expkainations, I cannot take exception to his reasoning.



The marble example was employed to show that the reasoning of the atheist is correct.



I'm not trying to prove miracles, but rather show this line of thinking isn't flawed. I will use this line of thinking in another thread.

I think this is where we're headed...



Heywood's argument on this thread, which he has let the rest of us make for him, is: You cannot exclude the possibility of a black marble in the next draw (supernatural explanation for an event) because you have drawn nothing but white marbles (all incidents up to this point have natural explanations.)





Heywood's next thread/argument using what most have already said here is: You cannot rule out the next apparently unexplainable incident as NOT being a miracle simply because none of the previous ones haven't been.



I was thinking the same. It's kind of a skeazy and desperate move though. Also, unless that last marble is the Flying Spaghetti Monster Herself, it doesn't matter in the slightest to me (following my last post about hamsters, my status as a human being is not changed by the color of the last marble). What's stopping us from picking out the last marble? A lot of large claims are being made based on it, so we'd be remiss to leave it in the bin. Unless it just disappears, in which I'd say it WAS god, because that's the kind of douchebaggery I'd expect from that poser. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 01:30 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 12:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Star crash, If an atheist says to me he is very skeptical of a claim of a miracle simply on the basis that all other miracles he's looked at turned out to have natural expkainations, I cannot take exception to his reasoning.

The marble example was employed to show that the reasoning of the atheist is correct.

I'm not trying to prove miracles, but rather show this line of thinking isn't flawed. I will use this line of thinking in another thread.
I think this is where we're headed...

Heywood's argument on this thread, which he has let the rest of us make for him, is: You cannot exclude the possibility of a black marble in the next draw (supernatural explanation for an event) because you have drawn nothing but white marbles (all incidents up to this point have natural explanations.)


Heywood's next thread/argument using what most have already said here is: You cannot rule out the next apparently unexplainable incident as NOT being a miracle simply because none of the previous ones haven't been.

Wrong!

I am only interested in showing that if you only observe white marbles then it is likely that all the marbles whose color you cannot observe, are white as well.

If you only observe miracles with natural explanations then it is more likely that all miracles have natural explanations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 02:10 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 02:08 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 01:30 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think this is where we're headed...

Heywood's argument on this thread, which he has let the rest of us make for him, is: You cannot exclude the possibility of a black marble in the next draw (supernatural explanation for an event) because you have drawn nothing but white marbles (all incidents up to this point have natural explanations.)


Heywood's next thread/argument using what most have already said here is: You cannot rule out the next apparently unexplainable incident as NOT being a miracle simply because none of the previous ones haven't been.

Wrong!

I am only interested in showing that if you only observe white marbles then it is likely that all the marbles whose color you cannot observe, are white as well.

If you only observe miracles with natural explanations then it is more likely that all miracles have natural explanations.
Care to show any of these "miracles" you claim must be natural? That you based on...well...based on a false understanding of statistics and probabilities.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 01:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 01:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I did read what you had to say but didn't find it meaningful. I agree the composition of the bin is such that it either contains all white marbles or it does not. However reality doesn't stand in the way of us making meaningful statements about what the likey composition of the bin is going to be. Probability and statistics don't make predictions, but they are tools which allow us to make accurate predictions.
"However reality doesn't stand in the way of us making meaningful statements about what the likey composition of the bin is going to be."

I did not say that it did. We can make a prediction, but it may not reflect reality. You have no way of knowing what the reality is unless you take all the marbles out, but you can't do that with nature, so we can only describe what we observe and exclude that which we do not.

"Probability and statistics don't make predictions.."


When I first asked you if they did, you said the opposite. Glad something got through.


"...but they are tools which allow us to make accurate predictions."


No. They are descriptors of what we have observed. We then use our understanding of reality to make predictions, but our predictions cannot be demonstrated false or true until such time as they are observed to be true, as one can never prove a false prediction or prove something false based on the lack of an observation.

It is certainly true that people misuse statistics and probabilities to try and make predictions, and a lot of them lose it all when they bet on black.

I don't think our beliefs on this are that far apart, rather we are quibbling on the words we use. You want to say probabilities are descriptions we use to make predictions, and I say they are tools we use to make predictions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 02:25 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 01:47 PM)darthbreezy Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 01:30 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think this is where we're headed...



Heywood's argument on this thread, which he has let the rest of us make for him, is: You cannot exclude the possibility of a black marble in the next draw (supernatural explanation for an event) because you have drawn nothing but white marbles (all incidents up to this point have natural explanations.)





Heywood's next thread/argument using what most have already said here is: You cannot rule out the next apparently unexplainable incident as NOT being a miracle simply because none of the previous ones haven't been.



I was thinking the same. It's kind of a skeazy and desperate move though. Also, unless that last marble is the Flying Spaghetti Monster Herself, it doesn't matter in the slightest to me (following my last post about hamsters, my status as a human being is not changed by the color of the last marble). What's stopping us from picking out the last marble? A lot of large claims are being made based on it, so we'd be remiss to leave it in the bin. Unless it just disappears, in which I'd say it WAS god, because that's the kind of douchebaggery I'd expect from that poser. Wink

There are a lot of situations in which you can't draw all the marbles. Suppose a person draws a random marble from the bin and keeps it hidden from you. You draw all the remaining marbles from the bin and find them all to be white. Is it more likely than not that the marble hidden from you is black or is it more likely than not that the marble hidden from you is white?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: Probability
(14-03-2013 02:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 01:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "However reality doesn't stand in the way of us making meaningful statements about what the likey composition of the bin is going to be."

I did not say that it did. We can make a prediction, but it may not reflect reality. You have no way of knowing what the reality is unless you take all the marbles out, but you can't do that with nature, so we can only describe what we observe and exclude that which we do not.

"Probability and statistics don't make predictions.."


When I first asked you if they did, you said the opposite. Glad something got through.


"...but they are tools which allow us to make accurate predictions."


No. They are descriptors of what we have observed. We then use our understanding of reality to make predictions, but our predictions cannot be demonstrated false or true until such time as they are observed to be true, as one can never prove a false prediction or prove something false based on the lack of an observation.

It is certainly true that people misuse statistics and probabilities to try and make predictions, and a lot of them lose it all when they bet on black.

I don't think our beliefs on this are that far apart, rather we are quibbling on the words we use. You want to say probabilities are descriptions we use to make predictions, and I say they are tools we use to make predictions.
No. I am not saying that probabilities are descriptions we use to make predictions. I am saying that statistics and probabilities are descriptions of observations. We then use our observations to discern what may or may not be likely in the future or in the past. But we have no way of verifying it without direct observation of it being true, and no way of ever verifying it to be 100% false.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: