3 ms·

We know the historic average, but also variability, and I'm pretty sure that data just so happens to be a standard example of what is specifically called the "n

by xkemp 7y ago

We know the historic average, but also variability, and I'm pretty sure that data just so happens to be a standard example of what is specifically called the "normal distribution". So I don't see what the problem is with charting, say, the 98% confidence interval, calling it normal, and stating that values outside that range are 1-in-50 year events.

s1artibartfast 7y ago
The problem is is that the average is presented without the range and called normal or typical. you may live your life and never experience an average day.
- MR4D 7y ago
  Thank you ! Most people never understand this aspect of statistics. Living in Houston, and having survived 3 out of 4 years with an above-100-year floods, I understand firsthand the clumping of events. But the "typical" guy on the street (oops, now I just violated my own rule!) has no clue what a distribution is. Not sure how to solve this problem. Teaching statistics to everyone in not a solution (see the Monty Hall Problem [0] ). [0] - https://statisticsbyjim.com/fun/monty-hall-problem/ https://statisticsbyjim.com/fun/monty-hall-problem/
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    Wow, people can be spectacularly ignorant of even simpler things like probability: 1) Scientists predicting the probability of an earthquake in a region that just had one. "If it doesn't occur, they'll say it was only a probability, and if it does, they'll claim they predicted it! Stop wasting taxpayer's money on this nonsense!" 2) "My mother chain smoked all her life and she's in her 90's. So smoking doesn't cause cancer."
caseysoftware 7y ago
Claiming it should be a "normal distribution" (aka a bell curve) is a major assumption based on there is a "correct" temperature that remains fixed over time. To the best of my knowledge, few places have tracked temperature longer than the last 150 years and beyond that we have estimates and calculations that have variances/tolerances built in. Is 150 data points for a given location enough to KNOW both the "correct temperature" and that it does/doesn't move?

by xkemp 7y ago

s1artibartfast 7y ago

The problem is is that the average is presented without the range and called normal or typical. you may live your life and never experience an average day.

MR4D 7y ago
Thank you ! Most people never understand this aspect of statistics. Living in Houston, and having survived 3 out of 4 years with an above-100-year floods, I understand firsthand the clumping of events. But the "typical" guy on the street (oops, now I just violated my own rule!) has no clue what a distribution is. Not sure how to solve this problem. Teaching statistics to everyone in not a solution (see the Monty Hall Problem [0] ). [0] - https://statisticsbyjim.com/fun/monty-hall-problem/ https://statisticsbyjim.com/fun/monty-hall-problem/
- lopmotr 7y ago
  Wow, people can be spectacularly ignorant of even simpler things like probability: 1) Scientists predicting the probability of an earthquake in a region that just had one. "If it doesn't occur, they'll say it was only a probability, and if it does, they'll claim they predicted it! Stop wasting taxpayer's money on this nonsense!" 2) "My mother chain smoked all her life and she's in her 90's. So smoking doesn't cause cancer."

caseysoftware 7y ago

Claiming it should be a "normal distribution" (aka a bell curve) is a major assumption based on there is a "correct" temperature that remains fixed over time. To the best of my knowledge, few places have tracked temperature longer than the last 150 years and beyond that we have estimates and calculations that have variances/tolerances built in. Is 150 data points for a given location enough to KNOW both the "correct temperature" and that it does/doesn't move?