The scams of Statistics...

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by Scott Mayers »

I haven't read all the back and forth things here and am NOT pissed at you for getting frustrated with me. I am not sure what mick said regarding a 'relativist' position but this IS what I believe is happening here. You may think that one answer has to be perfectly unique. I'll try a different way regarding logic directly. The problem is, I need to know what you guys know of the DeMorgan rule or law of inverting in logic and math?

That is, given (A and B), this equals -(-A or -B) [DeMorgan].


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by Obvious Leo »

Scott. There's nothing new about de Morgan's laws. They date back to Aristotle and were already formalised into logic by Ockham. However the Monty Hall puzzle has nothing to do with Boolean algebra.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Obvious Leo wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: the Monty Hall problem has been proven many times.
This is what's doing my head in with Scott. The outcome is beyond question because it has been proven literally millons of times by undergraduates all over the world as a part of routine course-work requirements.

I reckon I can prove that it is mechanically impossible for a two-stroke internal combustion engine to work and yet I have several items of equipment in my shed which rely on them and I know how to maintain this equipment correctly. I used to know a bloke who could prove that it was aerodynamically impossible for a helicopter to fly.

Some mothers do 'ave 'em.
Apparently it's been mathematically 'proven' that bees can't fly too. :)
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. There's nothing new about de Morgan's laws. They date back to Aristotle and were already formalised into logic by Ockham. However the Monty Hall puzzle has nothing to do with Boolean algebra.
I didn't imply anything "New" about it. And YES, the problem of interpretation regarding the Monty Hall Problem (paradox) is resolvable by understanding this law.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by Obvious Leo »

Scott Mayers wrote:And YES, the problem of interpretation regarding the Monty Hall Problem (paradox) is resolvable by understanding this law.
As a wordsmith in good standing I must insist on correct forms of language. The Monty Hall "problem" is NOT a paradox and neither is it a mathematics problem or a probability problem. It is the simplest of simple logic puzzles which a pigeon can solve after only a few attempts. I've always been a bird lover and I've always questioned the logic of using the term "birdbrain" as a term of abuse. You are not a birdbrain, Scott, because you can't think rationally like a bird can.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Obvious Leo wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:And YES, the problem of interpretation regarding the Monty Hall Problem (paradox) is resolvable by understanding this law.
As a wordsmith in good standing I must insist on correct forms of language. The Monty Hall "problem" is NOT a paradox and neither is it a mathematics problem or a probability problem. It is the simplest of simple logic puzzles which a pigeon can solve after only a few attempts. I've always been a bird lover and I've always questioned the logic of using the term "birdbrain" as a term of abuse. You are not a birdbrain, Scott, because you can't think rationally like a bird can.
I don't know what your problem is here with me, Leo. I take back everything I gave credit to you for. I've already granted you enough charity, yet you are a clear bully here, lack any sincere concern for actual logic, and appear to be doing whatever you can to disrupt me with certain intent to cause harm.

I'm asking that you stay clear from me and my threads. You're a disgrace and representative of all that is wrong with online forums.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by Obvious Leo »

I'm not a bully at all Scott. I simply won't stand idly by and allow somebody to peddle falsehoods without drawing attention to the fact. The members of this forum have a right to know that what you are proclaiming as true is UNIVERSALLY acknowledged as bollocks.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Obvious Leo wrote:I'm not a bully at all Scott. I simply won't stand idly by and allow somebody to peddle falsehoods without drawing attention to the fact. The members of this forum have a right to know that what you are proclaiming as true is UNIVERSALLY acknowledged as bollocks.
Your acting as a 'bully' by simply declaring your opinion without justification and presenting others' as being simply retarded by comparison. In contrast, I believe in granting people a charity to be reasonable by default even where others may not understand this at first. I believe that to contribute effectively, we have to assume by default that people have GOOD reasons to behave the way they do with respect to their experience in this life. This means sincerely trying to "place yourself in other people's shoes" which mean that in order to understand them requires finding a justification that actually leads to confirming them as being reasonable from their perspective. You are only acting to insult others by degrading them without sincerely trying to understand them from their perspective.

I'm getting tired of trying if only because some people simply default to assuming one is insane for their thinking as well as their being. And it defeats one's ability to prove themselves one way or the other no matter what they could do. It's killing me because I can only either keep trying to be understood or just give up permanently trying to appeal to what others will think of me by default of some genetic factors.

I don't know if I have any hope, but my only chance is to try to convince others' to appeal to the invested effort by at least trying to be fair. But I'm losing the last thread of hope here. If this world benefits best by assuring those who threaten others through insult should be dismissed, what is contingently based on one's emotions alone are ALL that matters and is then what makes me question participating in a game that will never favor me no matter what I might say or do. I'm getting too tired now. And I beg every time I fall asleep that I could just return to the very nothingness I came from. In the word of the band, Poison, "Give me something to believe in,"becaue I'm losing faith in ANY humam being at all....which includes.....


...myself!
mickthinks
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by mickthinks »

Leo, nobody here has elected you to protect us from other people's misunderstandings, and if the only alternative you have is to set yourself above other members by throwing insults at them, I would certainly prefer you "to stand idly by".
dionisos
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:03 am

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by dionisos »

Scott Mayers wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:I'm not a bully at all Scott. I simply won't stand idly by and allow somebody to peddle falsehoods without drawing attention to the fact. The members of this forum have a right to know that what you are proclaiming as true is UNIVERSALLY acknowledged as bollocks.
Your acting as a 'bully' by simply declaring your opinion without justification and presenting others' as being simply retarded by comparison. In contrast, I believe in granting people a charity to be reasonable by default even where others may not understand this at first. I believe that to contribute effectively, we have to assume by default that people have GOOD reasons to behave the way they do with respect to their experience in this life. This means sincerely trying to "place yourself in other people's shoes" which mean that in order to understand them requires finding a justification that actually leads to confirming them as being reasonable from their perspective. You are only acting to insult others by degrading them without sincerely trying to understand them from their perspective.

I'm getting tired of trying if only because some people simply default to assuming one is insane for their thinking as well as their being. And it defeats one's ability to prove themselves one way or the other no matter what they could do. It's killing me because I can only either keep trying to be understood or just give up permanently trying to appeal to what others will think of me by default of some genetic factors.

I don't know if I have any hope, but my only chance is to try to convince others' to appeal to the invested effort by at least trying to be fair. But I'm losing the last thread of hope here. If this world benefits best by assuring those who threaten others through insult should be dismissed, what is contingently based on one's emotions alone are ALL that matters and is then what makes me question participating in a game that will never favor me no matter what I might say or do. I'm getting too tired now. And I beg every time I fall asleep that I could just return to the very nothingness I came from. In the word of the band, Poison, "Give me something to believe in,"becaue I'm losing faith in ANY humam being at all....which includes.....


...myself!
Ok, i give you the last hope i have that we could understand each others, and see who is wrong (this could include both of us, or neither of us).
But, our way to argue here, have be a fail, the first step is to change it.
I propose to you, a new general strategy, we will go step my step, we will define and formalize everything that we use, including reasoning rules.
We will also formalize the game, first to see if we speak to the same game, second because we can’t apply our formalized reasoning rules at it otherwise.
If something is to hard to formalize, we could agree to have a pseudo-formalization on it.
After each step/definition, we will wait for the other one to accept this step, or refuse it.
Do you agree ?

Here is my first step, i will define what mean "the probability to have X by doing Y is c", also called "P(X)=c in Y".
Consider an experiment Y, we will call the result of this experiment R(Y).
P(X)=c in Y mean that:
For whatever real number E>0, and whatever whole number S>0, i could repeatably do the experiment (but do it at least S times), and increment C each time i get R(Y)=X, such as, if i did the experiment N time, then i get |C/N-c|<E.

To give you a example, consider the experiment Y: "tossing a coin", and one of its possible result X : "getting a head".
P("getting a head")=1/2 in "tossing a coin" , mean that:
If you give me whatever E>0, by example 10^(-100), and whatever number S, by example 10000.
Then i could repeatably toss the coin(but a minimum of 10000 times), and if N is the number of time i tossed the coin, and C the number of time i get a head by doing it, then after a moment, i will get |C/N-1/2|<10^(-100).

Note that this is only a example with E=10^(-100) and S=10000, for saying that P("getting a head")=1/2, it should be true for every E>0 you could give me, and every S>0 you could give me.

Also note that P(X) will not depend of your luck at all here, you could get a head 10000 times in a row, you could still continue and attain a number C of head such as |C/N - 1/2| is as small as you want.
And note that if you can’t, by example if you always get a head by tossing your coin, it mean that P(head) when you toss your coin, is not really 1/2, but 1.

Yes my definition could seem complex, but take into account that i couldn’t use some form of circularity, like in "the probability is the likeliness…", or "the probability is the chance to…".
I had to found the substance of what we mean by "probability", and the reality is that it is a complex concept.

Do you agree, and if not, how would you formalize what a "probability" mean ?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by Scott Mayers »

dionisos,

I will look at your defining points but noticed that you mentioned the use of coin tosses here and is something I thought of as a prime example to show why you can't use repeated empirical examples in real life to determine whether they support or do not support any theory in probability. Because I had thought of this and intended to come online to present this, allow me to at least present it before addressing your last post. You may want to recognize how we cannot use multiple attempts to interpret any truth.

Why we Cannot use multiple games to prove a Probability

For a single coin toss, we have the following possibilities:
(1) H
(2) T


The probabilities are:
P(H)...... = 1/2
P(T)...... = 1/2
P(H or T) = 1


This means that our odds for ANY game uniquely is 1/2 to get a H

Now if we were to use the results of repeated tosses in any attempt to be empirical, we couldn't appropriately infer anything from it. Here is why:

For two tosses, we have the following possibilities. Each of these represent real possible outcomes should one do any such experiment:
....Game 1...... Game 2
(1)....H..............H
(2)....H..............T
(3)....T..............H
(4)....T..............T


If we did an empirical experiment, in practice each of the above rows represent possible REAL results. As such, you could see that in (1) such an outcome would be probable as 1/4. This particular possible outcome also represents the truth "At least one H" is probable. As such, the probability to have "At least one H" is also probable 3/4 times given multiple worlds where these two coins could be tossed. In other words, if we had different groups do two coin tosses independently, it would appear that 3/4 of them would support that at least 1/2 of the time, the proper 1/2 odds of any given event could be confirmed.

P(at least one H) = 3/4

Thus, this proves that you cannot use multiple repeated experiments in real life to demonstrate support for one's actual argument logical argument. One only has to pick and choose which experiment that appears to support their view to show that it is 'confirmed'.

So before moving on, do you agree that we cannot use multiple events. This is why I didn't approve of your use of repeating the experiment even as a computer program. All that matters is to deal with the math with any one event.

As a side note, this is why gamblers rationally believe in continuing to gamble. They interpret reasonably that if they play more times, they increase their odds even if the independent odds are against them for any one game.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

You both appear to be determining the probability after the fact, which is a nonsense.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by Scott Mayers »

I looked at your post above, dionisos, and notice that you ARE setting this up to allow for you to demonstrate some experimental procedure. We cannot allow this as I show above.

I have another point on the idea of perspectives I wanted to demonstrate. I am guessing that you are familiar with DeMorgan's law? I want to first show HOW we sincerely can interpret that more than one conclusion actually can be "rational". By "rational" I only mean that it follows some sincere logical reasoning even if they may not be approved of by the same common standards of another person by perspective.

A simple intuitive illustration of this is:
Image
Do you see a Rabbit or a Duck? Or....both?
dionisos
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:03 am

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by dionisos »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You both appear to be determining the probability after the fact, which is a nonsense.
The probability of a event after we know the fact is 1 or 0.
It is not a nonsense, but it is useless, where do you think i do that ?
dionisos
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:03 am

Re: The scams of Statistics...

Post by dionisos »

Scott Mayers,
If you don’t agree with my definition of what a probability is, please give your own.
Post Reply