Probability



14032013, 09:28 PM




RE: Probability
(14032013 09:11 PM)Vosur Wrote:(14032013 08:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: My example answers your criticism. It works for any finite number of marbles. It shows that as you draw white marbles, you eliminate possible ways the bin can have black ones. If every possible arrangement is equally likely at the start of the drawing process, then as you decrease the possibilities for the existence of black marbles, it increases the probability of the remaining possibilities, including the possibility that only white marbles exist in the bin.I forgive you your lack of acknowledgment of previous responses. That's not a claim I am making. The claim I making is that the probability of all the marbles being white is an increasing function of drawing white marbles without ever drawing a black one. Does my example show that my claim is true since it works with any finite number of marbles? If it does not please point out the flaw. If it does, please concede that I have made my case without having to know the specific composition of the bin. I am sorry I did not PM this to you, but I figured you would assume that my example in thread adequately answered our pm conversation. 

14032013, 09:40 PM




RE: Probability
(14032013 08:55 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:(14032013 08:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Show why my example is flawed Vosur. Chas like many others isn't addressing the claim I made. They are making up the claim that I can know the probabilities of drawing a white or black marble with out knowing the composition of the bin. This is called a straw man argument. Instead Chas should address my actual claim that the probability of the bin containing only white marbles is an increasing function of drawing white marbles and never drawing black ones. If his claim is that I can't prove that without knowing the composition of the bin, he must show that my example does not work for any finite quantity of marbles. The fact is my example does work for all finite quantities of marbles and therefore I have made my case. To claim I am wrong without exposing a fatal flaw in my example is as ludicrous as Ray Comfort claims that bananas prove the existence of God. 

14032013, 09:51 PM




RE: Probability
(14032013 09:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:(14032013 09:11 PM)Vosur Wrote: I forgive you your lack of acknowledgment of previous responses. The flaw is that no probabilities are affected. The only thing affected is your perception of the probability. You think/feel/believe that it is more and more likely that most or all of the balls are white as you draw balls and get white. You can't calculate anything. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

14032013, 10:37 PM




RE: Probability
(14032013 09:51 PM)Chas Wrote:(14032013 09:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: That's not a claim I am making. The claim I making is that the probability of all the marbles being white is an increasing function of drawing white marbles without ever drawing a black one. Does my example show that my claim is true since it works with any finite number of marbles? In my example I am able to calculate probabilities. My example works with any finite amount of marbles. Therefore I can safely conclude that the probability that all the marbles are white is an increasing function of drawing only white marbles without ever observing black ones. Once again I notice you fail to even attack the evidence I bring. If you want to show that I am wrong, then show my example is fatally flawed. You won't do this because you can't. Instead you take a tactic of obsfuscation. You are confusing probability with reality. Probability is the relative possibility an event will occur, or has occurred if we are yet to observe it. It is a statement of the likely hood of something being true based on the information we currently have. 

15032013, 05:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 15032013 05:56 AM by EvolutionKills.)




RE: Probability
(14032013 10:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:(14032013 09:51 PM)Chas Wrote: The flaw is that no probabilities are affected. The only thing affected is your perception of the probability. Holy fuck nuts, 17 pages in and he still hasn't realized he's making the Gambler's Fallacy over and over again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy "The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913), and also referred to as the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process, future deviations in the opposite direction are then more likely." "The most famous example of the gambler’s fallacy occurred in a game of roulette at the Monte Carlo Casino on August 18, 1913, when the ball fell in black 26 times in a row. This was an extremely uncommon occurrence, although no more nor less common than any of the other 67,108,863 sequences of 26 red or black. Gamblers lost millions of francs betting against black, reasoning incorrectly that the streak was causing an "imbalance" in the randomness of the wheel, and that it had to be followed by a long streak of red." "Possible solutions The gambler's fallacy is a deepseated cognitive bias and therefore very difficult to eliminate. For the most part, educating individuals about the nature of randomness has not proven effective in reducing or eliminating any manifestation of the gambler's fallacy. Participants in an early study by Beach and Swensson (1967) were shown a shuffled deck of index cards with shapes on them, and were told to guess which shape would come next in a sequence. The experimental group of participants was informed about the nature and existence of the gambler's fallacy, and were explicitly instructed not to rely on "run dependency" to make their guesses. The control group was not given this information. Even so, the response styles of the two groups were similar, indicating that the experimental group still based their choices on the length of the run sequence. Clearly, instructing individuals about randomness is not sufficient in lessening the gambler's fallacy." Also, where in the hell does he get to add 'relative' into the definition of 'probability'? He seems to have a terrible habit of making up his own definitions... 

1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post 
15032013, 05:39 AM




RE: Probability
(14032013 10:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:Your proof is faulty, and you know that.(14032013 09:51 PM)Chas Wrote: The flaw is that no probabilities are affected. The only thing affected is your perception of the probability. 

15032013, 06:20 AM
(This post was last modified: 15032013 07:26 AM by Vosur.)




RE: Probability
(14032013 09:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:Vosur Wrote:You cannot say that either of these events have this and that probability when you don't know how many white (and possibly colored) marbles there are.That's not a claim I am making. (10032013 01:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Please note that before starting the draws the probability of the bin containing just white marbles is .25. I forgive you for lying to me. (14032013 09:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Does my example show that my claim is true since it works with any finite number of marbles?No, it doesn't show that your claim is true. You're still doing the very thing I have criticized, which is asserting that you know the probabilities of any given event (see above) without being able to calculate it. (14032013 09:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The claim I making is that the probability of all the marbles being white is an increasing function of drawing white marbles without ever drawing a black one.I know that, but it has already been pointed out that this is only an assumption. 

15032013, 09:35 AM




RE: Probability
If you want a mathematical demonstration for why you are wrong, here goes.
Let's say I have a bucket of marbles of different colors (I know the true number of colors, but telling would defeat the purpose of the whole bloody experiment). I will however, tell you that the bucket contains a finite number of marbles at 11,111 (Just the way the number comes out after I add up the colors of marbles and the numbers I assigned them) I can calculate the true probabilities because I know the actual numbers of each, you don't. So, I allow you to start drawing a random sampling of marble from the bucket of 11,111. The only number of draws that allows you to actually say what the true probability is, would be 11,111 (or to put it another way, to observe them all). That is not how reality works unfortunately. Typically we have to do what we can with the information and observations we can access. So, in a case like this, we would do something called rarefaction in order to come up with an estimate for the number of colors at any given sample size (a rarefaction curve) as a way of guessing what the best estimate for the number of colors in the bucket is, but also realizing that this estimate is not going to be true, since I can't actually discern the true number without observing them all directly. Here is the rarefaction curve I have generated (it is still running but takes quite a while since it does 10,000 runs) [attachment=1203] So, based on the rarefaction curve, how many colors would you say there are? (I am at run/sample size 440 and the number is 3.44) We might assume the number is 4. Is that true? Is 4 the magic number? My hint is, no. But the rarefaction curve and the probabilities we generate don't tell us the true diversity in the bucket, only the diversity of our samples. After I have that information, I might say something like: The most commonly drawn marble was white, with the next most commonly drawn marble being black, a small number of red, and the rare blue marble. The probabilities for each draw having been white is 90%, black = 9%, Red = .9%%, and Blue = .09% Those probabilities only describe what I drew, not what is in the bucket. I know this to be true since I know that these are in fact not the only colors in the bucket, and we know that in reality, we are also not likely taking a sampling of everything. Which is why we don't use statistics and probabilities to make predictions, only observations of our data. “Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” —Thomas Henry Huxley 

1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post 
15032013, 09:39 AM




RE: Probability
At sample size 540, number of colors = 3.53, variability = 0.38
Best guess is still 4, and that is still wrong. “Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” —Thomas Henry Huxley 

15032013, 09:47 AM




RE: Probability
At sample size 600, number of colors = 3.59, variability = 0.41
Best guess is still 4, and that is still wrong. “Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” —Thomas Henry Huxley 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)