4 ms·

I've seen a very similar problem to this referred to as "black swan events"[1]. The whole point is you can't actually compute it. You see the period, it's there

I've seen a very similar problem to this referred to as "black swan events"[1]. The whole point is you can't actually compute it. You see the period, it's there. What he's doing here isn't science, it's a guess. As others have pointed it, it's rather rare that events happen with perfectly distributed probability (probably the opposite). For instance, the chance of being in an accident is much higher if an accident just occurred right next to you. It's almost way more likely to get sick, if others are already sick. In fact, although I don't have any statistics to back me up, I'd guess that most events happen in clusters (including spelling errors, or when you test for perfect pitch in children, when you go to the music class). This is essentially a guess, and it's better to say you don't know than guess wildly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

exp1orer 8y ago
> it's better to say you don't know than guess wildly. > although I don't have any statistics to back me up, I'd guess that most events happen in clusters More seriously, yes, before you apply this rule you should think about whether "each event has the same probability of error" is appropriate for your situation.
vlehto 8y ago
I'm nitpicking, but there is not even a chance that this could be "science" with any coherent definitions of science and future. For example there is Karl Poppers falsification standard. Future is never falsifiable as long as it remains in the future. Another approach would be this: Future is impossible to research, as you can only research entities that exist or phenomena that is happening. Future entities and future phenomena do not exist yet ( by definition ) so you cannot research them. -> no science of future. What we are talking here is scientific prediction. "Scientific" is just another word for good and only means something when compared to another method of prediction that can be shown to be worse. So we very much agree. I just wanted to write this out because the Future studies crowd has bothered me for some time now.
carlmr 8y ago
>The whole point is you can't actually compute it. You can't compute the probability. But you can compute an upper bound on the probability with a reasonable confidence, which is what the author is doing here. This is standard statistics and might be useful in some cases. It does assume that the events are independent, but this is a pretty standard assumption that you have to check whether it applies in your case, or at least approximately applies in your case. >What he's doing here isn't science, it's a guess. Which is a pretty big thing in this subfield mathematics called statistics.

exp1orer 8y ago

> it's better to say you don't know than guess wildly. > although I don't have any statistics to back me up, I'd guess that most events happen in clusters More seriously, yes, before you apply this rule you should think about whether "each event has the same probability of error" is appropriate for your situation.

vlehto 8y ago

I'm nitpicking, but there is not even a chance that this could be "science" with any coherent definitions of science and future. For example there is Karl Poppers falsification standard. Future is never falsifiable as long as it remains in the future. Another approach would be this: Future is impossible to research, as you can only research entities that exist or phenomena that is happening. Future entities and future phenomena do not exist yet ( by definition ) so you cannot research them. -> no science of future. What we are talking here is scientific prediction. "Scientific" is just another word for good and only means something when compared to another method of prediction that can be shown to be worse. So we very much agree. I just wanted to write this out because the Future studies crowd has bothered me for some time now.

carlmr 8y ago

>The whole point is you can't actually compute it. You can't compute the probability. But you can compute an upper bound on the probability with a reasonable confidence, which is what the author is doing here. This is standard statistics and might be useful in some cases. It does assume that the events are independent, but this is a pretty standard assumption that you have to check whether it applies in your case, or at least approximately applies in your case. >What he's doing here isn't science, it's a guess. Which is a pretty big thing in this subfield mathematics called statistics.