uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 1:21 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 12:09 pm
uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 11:58 am
Yes Skepdick, I do. Do you see the absurdity of pretending that you calculated the odds of murder rates decreasing being 2:1 against from 500 years worth of data?
It is 2:1 against! It's the inverse of 1:3 FOR.
The odds for murder going UP were also 2:1 against (1:3 FOR)
The odds for murder remaining steady were also 2:1 against (1:3 FOR)
That's simply because of the fact that there are two competing hypotheses.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all Skepdick's ludicrous squawking about n data points makes absolutely no difference. This for instance:
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 12:04 am1 in 3 on a week-long observation is not the same as 1 in 3 over 500 years of observation.
There will only ever be three things that can happen to the murder rates.
Anyway, it's funny for a while and then yer start feeling sorry for the poor fucker.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 2:43 pm
I have a conundrum on my hands.
Either you really are as ignorant as the argument you are making, or you are just being contrarian.
I'll exercise charity here, and assume you are being contrarian for one; and for another - I have absolutely no intention teaching you prior and posterior probabilities.
Imbecile. You don't
even understand the difference between
odds and probabilities
The 500 years of data is significant for calculating the confidence interval of the
posterior probability (which I haven't given you - and you haven't bothered to work out)
Guess I am being too charitable.
uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 1:21 pm
There will only ever be three things that can happen to the murder rates.
The murder rate in Isle of Wright decreased in March 2020. That's 1 in 3 odds.
The global murder rate decreased in the last 500 years. That's also 1 in 3 odds.
If you insist that both scenarios signify the same evidentiary weight, and therefore justifies equivalent belief is to exemplify statistical and contextual blindness.
The odds will ALWAYS be 1:3. The probability of the outcome isn't 1:3.
That's why I insist that philosophers are idiots. It's factual claim, not an insult.