Moderator: Flannel Jesus
James own damned source wrote:One justification of Occam's Razor is a direct result of basic probability theory. By definition, all assumptions introduce possibilities for error; if an assumption does not improve the accuracy of a theory, its only effect is to increase the probability that the overall theory is wrong.
He sees the graph of the correlation, he does some reasonable calculations and he comes to this conclusion:Let's use an example directly from your OP:
Let's say I have a belief that Divorces in Maine have a near-direct causal relationship with US Per Capita Margarine Consumption.
Now, without looking closely at the details of my model of the world and why I think those are intricately causally linked, we can just say 'That belief is probably untrue'. We might even give a probability that it's true -- let's say it has a probability of .00001 (1/100000).
But his first assumption that the probability of a causal relation ship was only .00001 almost completely determined the result he would get. He didn't calculate anything useful although it looked very methodical and scientific.Which means that the probability that my belief is true started out at .00001, and after we saw the evidence of a strong correlation, it raised up to just under .01, but even with that evidence, because of the immense unlikelihood that it was true in the first place, it's still more likely that the correlation was due to random coincidence than that it was due to my belief being true.
Carleas wrote:To show this, he showed how if the likelihood of the proposition 'A' is .5, and the likelihood of the proposition 'B' is .5, then the likelihood of the proposition 'C' where C='A&B' cannot be .5.
And then he proposes that his belief in a direct causal relationship is reflected by giving the probability of it being accurate;Let's say I have a belief that Divorces in Maine have a near-direct causal relationship with US Per Capita Margarine Consumption.
Now, without looking closely at the details ... we can just say 'That belief is probably untrue'. We might even give a probability that it's true -- let's say it has a probability of .00001 (1/100000).
James S Saint wrote:He is proposing that we give mindlessness a much higher authority in decision making (literally a 100,000 to 1 higher).
phyllo wrote:An open mind would consider any statement as having a 50% chance of being true, at least initially.
Flannel Jesus wrote:James S Saint wrote:He is proposing that we give mindlessness a much higher authority in decision making (literally a 100,000 to 1 higher).
That was a number I gave as an example number. Your straw man here is absurd. It's as if I said 'I want to talk about my idea about prime numbers; let's take 7 for example' and you said 'Ha! Look at this fool! He thinks 7 is the only prime number!'
I was making a point about probabilities and updating them based on evidence (the evidence of statistical correlation in this case); my example probability was 1/100,000 and you respond with this absurd and completely transparent strawman.
Flannel Jesus wrote:phyllo wrote:An open mind would consider any statement as having a 50% chance of being true, at least initially.
I already proved that that's mathematically impossible. Here, something simpler, let's take these 3 statements:
I'm wearing a hat, and I'm not wearing a shirt, and I'm not wearing shoes.
I'm not wearing a hat, and I'm wearing a shirt, and I'm not wearing shoes.
I'm not wearing a hat, and I'm not wearing a shirt, and I'm wearing shoes.
They can't all have a probability of 50%. They're all mutually exclusive; a set of mutually exclusive probabilities has to some to 1 or less. If they're all 50%, they sum to 1.5. There's a 150% probability that one of those statements is true?
Flannel Jesus wrote:What I'm saying is 'not all statements have a probability of 50%; that is mathematically impossible.'
And I explained very clearly why it was a strawman. I used a number as an example; your post assumes I used that number as a universal constant for all situations.
I'm not talking about the probability of some set of statements.Flannel Jesus wrote:phyllo wrote:An open mind would consider any statement as having a 50% chance of being true, at least initially.
I already proved that that's mathematically impossible. Here, something simpler, let's take these 3 statements:
I'm wearing a hat, and I'm not wearing a shirt, and I'm not wearing shoes.
I'm not wearing a hat, and I'm wearing a shirt, and I'm not wearing shoes.
I'm not wearing a hat, and I'm not wearing a shirt, and I'm wearing shoes.
They can't all have a probability of 50%. They're all mutually exclusive; a set of mutually exclusive probabilities has to some to 1 or less. If they're all 50%, they sum to 1.5. There's a 150% probability that one of those statements is true?
Flannel Jesus wrote:No, not all true/false questions start out with 50/50 probability.
example:
I state:
A dwarf just broke into your house and stole your keys: 50/50?
You respond, true to form, 'Yes, 50/50'.
phyllo wrote:I'm not talking about the probability of some set of statements.phyllo wrote:An open mind would consider any statement as having a 50% chance of being true, at least initially.
I'm talking about a way of approaching a statement and determining whether it is true or false without a bias. That requires dropping preconceived ideas.
Flannel Jesus wrote:phyllo wrote:I'm not talking about the probability of some set of statements.phyllo wrote:An open mind would consider any statement as having a 50% chance of being true, at least initially.
I'm talking about a way of approaching a statement and determining whether it is true or false without a bias. That requires dropping preconceived ideas.
You are talking about a set of statements. 'Consider any statement as having a 50% chance' is you talking about a set of statements. Namely, the set of All statements.
James S Saint wrote:Flannel Jesus wrote:No, not all true/false questions start out with 50/50 probability.
example:
I state:
A dwarf just broke into your house and stole your keys: 50/50?
You respond, true to form, 'Yes, 50/50'.
For you to proclaim that it isn't 50/50, you have to presume that you know something about the truth of that statement first, don't you?
Do you know who said it?
Do you understand what was meant by "dwarf"?
Was your house unguarded for a long time?
Were your keys in your house to be stolen?
You instinctively assess those things pretty quickly and thus often mislead yourself into biased mis-judgment. People can easily take advantage of you because of your willingness to presume so readily.
"That is silly. No one would do that."
--- exactly what a con artist looks for.
Until you think about the real situation, you cannot assess any probability to favor anything.
Flannel Jesus wrote:This whole post reads like, 'If I make a semantic argument about dwarves, I could maybe make a dent in your argument.'
I'm not really the type to buy that line of argument. I have arguments in good faith. When I use 'dwarves' as an example, I'm not meaning anything confusing or unintuitive; I'm not planning on pulling any tricks by making 'dwarves' out to mean something you couldn't have expected it to mean. I'm not interested in that low type of arguing. I'm not engaging in it.
phyllo wrote:In this thread, I'm talking about divorce and margarine.
If you are asked to determine if there is a causal relationship between the two, what are your starting assumptions, if any?
skakos wrote:In a sense everything is interrelated in the cosmos. So it would impossible to have an event which does NOT affect another event, no matter what event that might be.
Amorphos wrote:as with earthquake aftershock formulas, these in the op and link are further evidence that patterns are being made utility of and indirectly. it tells us that nature uses maths.
all things are both in the same place and equally distant, hence there is an universal connectivity.
- not the same as god or any such thing though.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users