A discussion on weighing up two sides of an argument

[DJA]

Difference Between Condescending and Patronizing

[John Wheat]

Bayes's ideas were popularized by some dude named Pierre.

Didn't Pierre turn out to be female?

[DJA]

Dunno.

Surmised he was a male.

Was on a few sites,banned from at least two.

Let's face it,made a **** of it's self.

[DJA]

Black swan theory - Wikipedia

[JeffHamm]

Black swan theory - Wikipedia

Yes, that's a good example. Basically, it's how extremely rare and unlikely events are, by their very nature of being very rare and unlikely, impossible to predict, almost by definition. One can, however, make a meta-prediction type statement that "If you always choose the most probable, and make a large enough number of choices, the number of errors you will make can be predicted within a certain range, 95% of the time. But, regardless, it will be impossible a priori to predict if an individual choice will be one of them."

"Black swan" events do occur, but by definition they occur very very rarely, which means if one decides "This is the time for a black swan event", you have a very very high chance of being wrong.

It's basically an example of how probabilistic statements are not 100% truth statements, which is why they are stumbling blocks for pure reason - you cannot make a 100% new truth statements when one of the premises is of the "some X are Y", not matter how close to 100% that "some X" is. Even if it's off by only 1 in a billion, that means 1 in a billion times the most probable choice will be wrong. I just wouldn't want to bet that a given instance is that 1 in a billion.

We see this sort of thing in actual court cases too, which shows up as wrongful convictions even in the absence of corruption. Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt, making the criterion for conviction less than perfection. It's set to a high bar, but not an infallible one. To set it at an infallible level creates an impossible one to reach.

On the other hand, a true "black swan" occurrence effectively requires the current underlying theory to be wrong as well. There are examples of theories that have predicted what were considered to be such improbable events that had to occur that it became important to confirm them. Einstein's theory of relativity (of which I am no expert by any means) predicted the bending of light around large masses, and this was at the time considered highly improbable but his theory required it to happen. It was eventually confirmed, as were other things, such as gravitational waves (which took much longer to confirm as it required huge advances in technology to do it). So, just because something is considered highly improbable in one sense, according to theory that highly improbable event might be considered highly probable (as in the above examples). When something is considered highly probable to occur by a theory, and yet the highly unexpected happens, that is a signal the theory (or at least our understanding of its implications) is somehow flawed.

Thanks DJA, that was a really interesting point to bring in.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Meh.
White swans are found in cold miserable countries .
Black swans are found in Oz!

[DJA]

Yes, that's a good example. Basically, it's how extremely rare and unlikely events are, by their very nature of being very rare and unlikely, impossible to predict, almost by definition. One can, however, make a meta-prediction type statement that "If you always choose the most probable, and make a large enough number of choices, the number of errors you will make can be predicted within a certain range, 95% of the time. But, regardless, it will be impossible a priori to predict if an individual choice will be one of them."

"Black swan" events do occur, but by definition they occur very very rarely, which means if one decides "This is the time for a black swan event", you have a very very high chance of being wrong.

It's basically an example of how probabilistic statements are not 100% truth statements, which is why they are stumbling blocks for pure reason - you cannot make a 100% new truth statements when one of the premises is of the "some X are Y", not matter how close to 100% that "some X" is. Even if it's off by only 1 in a billion, that means 1 in a billion times the most probable choice will be wrong. I just wouldn't want to bet that a given instance is that 1 in a billion.

We see this sort of thing in actual court cases too, which shows up as wrongful convictions even in the absence of corruption. Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt, making the criterion for conviction less than perfection. It's set to a high bar, but not an infallible one. To set it at an infallible level creates an impossible one to reach.

On the other hand, a true "black swan" occurrence effectively requires the current underlying theory to be wrong as well. There are examples of theories that have predicted what were considered to be such improbable events that had to occur that it became important to confirm them. Einstein's theory of relativity (of which I am no expert by any means) predicted the bending of light around large masses, and this was at the time considered highly improbable but his theory required it to happen. It was eventually confirmed, as were other things, such as gravitational waves (which took much longer to confirm as it required huge advances in technology to do it). So, just because something is considered highly improbable in one sense, according to theory that highly improbable event might be considered highly probable (as in the above examples). When something is considered highly probable to occur by a theory, and yet the highly unexpected happens, that is a signal the theory (or at least our understanding of its implications) is somehow flawed.

Thanks DJA, that was a really interesting point to bring in.

- Jeff

Are you an Aspie?

[JeffHamm]

Are you an Aspie?

No, I'm just genuinely interested in all sorts of things. Why did you ask? Are you?

- Jeff

[DJA]

Nope,but if I was you,I'd get tested.

[JeffHamm]

Nope,but if I was you,I'd get tested.

You appear to have difficulty with people having interests different from your own. I suggest you follow your own advice. Difficulty with change, or differences like that, is a sign you know.

As for myself, I'm an academic. We tend to get interested in fine details and such, it's part of the joy of understanding things to explore them. Not everyone's cup of tea, but then, the world would be a very boring, and less productive place, if we were all the same.

- Jeff

[DJA]

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

[DJA]

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

[Fiver]

Define fact,if you would.

I have over 20 points that support an extremely strong case based on circumstantial evidence, and have absolutely no doubt that Henry Gawen Sutton was Jack the Ripper.

Under criminal law that would suffice for a trial,except he's already dead.

Also have a strong case that there was a cover up at high levels,including police and at least one politician.

There's an old saying - "put your money where your mouth is". Instead of presenting your case, you repeatedly hint at it on unrelated threads. If you really think you have a solution, then present it clearly with evidence in a dedicated thread. But you seem wedded to your current strategy of repeated self-promotion, so I doubt you will ever clearly and completely present your case.

[DJA]

I have been politely asked to start a dedicated thread by several long term members over the years.
Certainly not going to do so for a rude poster who accuses me of self promotion by quoting my post out of context.
Have been confined to bed for over two years fighting three forms of skin cancer and heart disease.I am in my 70s.
Truth is I've been seeking a suitable screen writer for over 16 years.Pretty much run out of time.

After considering your tactics,I will no longer even entertain expanding any further on the information previously afforded this website.

[caz]

Where did most people cease reading that,if they started in the first place?

I'm just catching up with some topics after the Easter break, and always find Jeff Hamm's posts worth reading. In fact, every poster gives away a little bit about themselves as individuals, and that can make for interesting reading whoever they are. I like to think I could recognise most regular posters from their posts, without checking the username.

that that is is that that is not is not is it

That that is, is; that that is not, is not - is it?

Do I win £5?

Love,

Caz
X