Probability



09032013, 03:30 AM




RE: Probability
I thought I already did say that...
"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly."  Robert A. Heinlein 

09032013, 03:33 AM




RE: Probability
(09032013 03:30 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote: I thought I already did say that...Yes you did and with much more precision than me I might add. Does that mean I shouldn't have said it again? 

09032013, 03:50 AM




RE: Probability
(09032013 03:33 AM)Andrew_Njonjo Wrote: No, no, go right ahead, the more the merrier, maybe if enough people disagree with the OP he might consider revising his flawed assumptions. Who am I kidding, there's no chance of that, but it doesn't stop me from correcting him over and over, nor from him disregarding anything I say over and over, so we dance our little dance... "Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly."  Robert A. Heinlein 

09032013, 04:06 AM




RE: Probability
(09032013 03:09 AM)Andrew_Njonjo Wrote: I don't agree, if the colors are unknown color then it would be bad science to think the probability of more white marbles increased with every white marble I pulled out. why can't I just look in the bin? And even more pertinent don't I have better things to do then to put my hands in the bin and pull out marbles one at a time? Its not the probability of more white marbles. It is the probability that all marbles in the bin are white. 

09032013, 04:08 AM




RE: Probability
(09032013 03:50 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:Can you could show my roulette example to be errant? Everyone seems to be ignoring that one. I wish I had used roulette example instead of the marbles because it is easier to conceptualize but I didn't think of it until Rahn made his false analogy.(09032013 03:33 AM)Andrew_Njonjo Wrote: 

09032013, 04:47 AM




RE: Probability
(09032013 02:00 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:I hope this is the roulette example you are referring to if it's not disregard everything else below.(09032013 01:20 AM)Rahn127 Wrote: I'm sorry, but NO, each item you pull out of the bin has no bearing on the probability of what you will pull out next. First if I can't see the roulette wheel how do I know the numbers being spat out aren't random numbers being spat out by a random number generator. That is on what basis have I deduced that the numbers are from roulette wheel spin. Second given I accept on your word that it is a roulette wheel spin that is generating the numbers on what basis have I limited it to the dichotomy of either a double 00 wheel or a single 0 wheel. Isn't there a large number of possibilities being excluded from this dichotomy. Thirdly if I accept the two above on your say so, statistical evidence is circumstantial at best on deciding this matter, let me give you an example of the faulty conclusions that can be arrived at using only statistics, in my country (Kenya) gun crime was very low in the early twentieth century so were the number of catholic priests. Throughout the 20th Century the number of Catholic priests has increased and so has gun crime. Am I right in concluding that the Catholic priests are causing the increase in gun crime. No I am not. There are two different factors driving the increase in both I would argue. Similarly there might be factors I am unaware of that are reducing the probability of the double zero showing up. Like gum stuck in the double zero slot. Or the ball having a magnetic polarity similar to the the one around the double zero slot any other number of possibilities that my sleep deprived mind can not conceive. Finally before you tell me that I should assume a fair roulette wheel, given you know so much about the wheel in question (from the two things you have told me above i.e. it is a roulette wheel and that it is either a double zero or single zero wheel and possibly it is a fair roulette wheel ) why can't you just give me the answer rather than me inferring from the number of or lack thereof of double zeros spun. Its a waste of time trying to figure this out with a limited view of experimental data when you have more data give me access to all the observations so that I can come to a better understanding and therefore formulate a better theory on the zeroed nature of this roulette wheel of yours why am I handicapping my ability to collect data by only adducing the zeroed nature from numbers spat out. 

09032013, 07:24 AM




RE: Probability
(09032013 04:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:(09032013 03:50 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:Can you could show my roulette example to be errant? Everyone seems to be ignoring that one. I wish I had used roulette example instead of the marbles because it is easier to conceptualize but I didn't think of it until Rahn made his false analogy. You are confusing the probabilities with the perception of the probabilities; that is, you are conflating mathematics with intuition. As you draw out more and more white balls, or as the roulette wheel continues to not give 00, your intuition leads you to believe there are probably mostly/all white balls or you are playing a single0 wheel. However, you haven't gained as much information as your intuitive brain thinks it has. This is a perception issue. Our minds create patterns and connections on scanty data because it works well most of the time. The humans whose brains worked this way are our ancestors, the one's whose brains waited for more data didn't survive to be ancestors. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

2 users Like Chas's post 
09032013, 07:52 AM




RE: Probability
(09032013 12:21 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Suppose there is a bin and you are told the bin contains marbles. You can't see into the bin but you are able to reach into the bin and pull out a marble. You wonder to yourself, what colors are the marbles in that bin? I don't disagree with that reasoning. You've given an example of inductive reasoning, which is a form of logic (you called it right). I wouldn't agree, though, that we reject miracles on the basis of the the large number of nonmiracles found... that's a misunderstanding of probability. That's like saying that you can't ever win the lottery because of all the times you lost. The law of large numbers will cause someone to win, no matter how small the odds are. I reject miracles because there's no explanatory power behind them... if something happened that I couldn't explain, then I couldn't credit it to a supernatural being because I can't connect cause and effect... I "can't explain" it! How would one measure God's influence on an event? How could you recognize what He had done to change it? It's all assumptions at best. My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her nonstick pan. 

09032013, 01:50 PM




RE: Probability
(09032013 07:24 AM)Chas Wrote: You are confusing the probabilities with the perception of the probabilities; that is, you are conflating mathematics with intuition. This is more than the mind creating some pattern. Observing only white marbles does increase the chance that all the marbles are white. Let X = the probability that all the marbles are white. Let An = n observations of white marbles without ever observing a non white marble. Assume that for all n, P(X  An) > 0 and P(An+1  An) < 1. we then have P(X & An+1  An) = P(X  An)P(An+1  X & An)= P(X  An). we also have P(X & An+1  An) = P(An+1  An)P(X  An+1 & An)= P(An+1  An)P(X  An+1). Combining these give us P(X  An) = P(An+1  An)P(X  An+1) < P(X  An+1). Which is another way of saying, P(X  An) is an increasing function of n. Its important to remember that just observing white marbles does not prove there are no black marbles. All it allows you to say is that it is now more likley(then it was before), that there are no black marbles. 

09032013, 01:52 PM




RE: Probability
You admitted to Vosur not 6 hours ago that this argument is flawed, mainly because you copied it off the blackboard without understanding it... That was less than twelve hours ago. Why are you posting it now when you know you're incorrect?
E ^{2} = (mc ^{2})^{2} + (pc )^{2} _{6}^{14}C → _{7}^{14}N + e^{–} + ̅ν_{e} 2 K_{(s)} + 2 H_{2}O_{(l)} → 2 KOH_{(aq)} + H_{2 (g)} + 196 kJ/mol It works, bitches. 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

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