3 ms·

If any of this were true, we wouldn't have statistics departments at universities. Of course you can draw conclusions from data. Of course we should be skepti

If any of this were true, we wouldn't have statistics departments at universities. Of course you can draw conclusions from data. Of course we should be skeptical of an assumption if the data shows that an incredibly unlikely sequence of events happened in light of that assumption. By the way, hurricanes are assigned genders alternately. The genders go back and forth.

coherentpony 12y ago
If any of this were true, we wouldn't have statistics departments at universities. I'm not sure what statement you're making here. Of course you can draw conclusions from data. I never once said you could not make conclusions from data. The data I had was that a) a fair coin was flipped; and b) out of 1000 flips, 873 of them were heads. Sure, this event has a small probability, but so what? Does it mean the coin was biased? Of course not. You told me that the coin was fair. If you didn't give me a) then I could certainly try to tell the probability of how biased the coin was doing an inference based on the data. But that wasn't part of the parent's question or background information. You go with what you know, not what you're sceptical about. If you win the lottery (which has a tiny probability), does that mean the lottery was biased towards those numbers? Of course we should be skeptical of an assumption if the data shows that an incredibly unlikely sequence of events happened in light of that assumption. Let me pose the question to you. You are given a fair two-sided coin. You flip the coin 1000 times. 875 of the flips turn up heads. Is the coin biased?
- theseoafs 12y ago
  > I'm not sure what statement you're making here. The statement I'm making is that you can simply brush off every scientific study by saying "yeah, that's just random chance, don't worry about it". The way that you're looking at this is completely backwards. If the data shows something incredibly unlikely happened, that means we should re-evaluate our assumptions. > Let me pose the question to you. You are given a fair two-sided coin. You flip the coin 1000 times. 875 of the flips turn up heads. Is the coin biased? Probably.
  - coherentpony 12y ago
    >The statement I'm making is that you can simply brush off every scientific study by saying "yeah, that's just random chance, don't worry about it". That is not what I was doing, and that is not true. Scientific studies involving statistics and probability, when done properly, are sound. Quantifying uncertainty is a big deal, and when you can do it you can make very solid conclusions. Are there perturbations due to random chance? Sure. That doesn't mean you can always brush them off. >If the data shows something incredibly unlikely happened, that means we should re-evaluate our assumptions. Absolutely agree with you here. My point was it is crucial that you document what you believe about the problem at hand. If you believe something is not true, it is not usually assumed to be true. >> Let me pose the question to you. You are given a fair two-sided coin. You flip the coin 1000 times. 875 of the flips turn up heads. Is the coin biased? >Probably. You are incorrect. The event that occurred was just very unlikely. I can tell you that with complete certainty because you were given a fair coin and you knew that information. If, on the other hand, you didn't know whether or not the coin was fair, then you would be correct (but that wasn't the case).

coherentpony 12y ago

If any of this were true, we wouldn't have statistics departments at universities. I'm not sure what statement you're making here. Of course you can draw conclusions from data. I never once said you could not make conclusions from data. The data I had was that a) a fair coin was flipped; and b) out of 1000 flips, 873 of them were heads. Sure, this event has a small probability, but so what? Does it mean the coin was biased? Of course not. You told me that the coin was fair. If you didn't give me a) then I could certainly try to tell the probability of how biased the coin was doing an inference based on the data. But that wasn't part of the parent's question or background information. You go with what you know, not what you're sceptical about. If you win the lottery (which has a tiny probability), does that mean the lottery was biased towards those numbers? Of course we should be skeptical of an assumption if the data shows that an incredibly unlikely sequence of events happened in light of that assumption. Let me pose the question to you. You are given a fair two-sided coin. You flip the coin 1000 times. 875 of the flips turn up heads. Is the coin biased?

theseoafs 12y ago
> I'm not sure what statement you're making here. The statement I'm making is that you can simply brush off every scientific study by saying "yeah, that's just random chance, don't worry about it". The way that you're looking at this is completely backwards. If the data shows something incredibly unlikely happened, that means we should re-evaluate our assumptions. > Let me pose the question to you. You are given a fair two-sided coin. You flip the coin 1000 times. 875 of the flips turn up heads. Is the coin biased? Probably.
- coherentpony 12y ago
  >The statement I'm making is that you can simply brush off every scientific study by saying "yeah, that's just random chance, don't worry about it". That is not what I was doing, and that is not true. Scientific studies involving statistics and probability, when done properly, are sound. Quantifying uncertainty is a big deal, and when you can do it you can make very solid conclusions. Are there perturbations due to random chance? Sure. That doesn't mean you can always brush them off. >If the data shows something incredibly unlikely happened, that means we should re-evaluate our assumptions. Absolutely agree with you here. My point was it is crucial that you document what you believe about the problem at hand. If you believe something is not true, it is not usually assumed to be true. >> Let me pose the question to you. You are given a fair two-sided coin. You flip the coin 1000 times. 875 of the flips turn up heads. Is the coin biased? >Probably. You are incorrect. The event that occurred was just very unlikely. I can tell you that with complete certainty because you were given a fair coin and you knew that information. If, on the other hand, you didn't know whether or not the coin was fair, then you would be correct (but that wasn't the case).