The Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx

[Robert Chung]

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
> Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I used to think I kinda knew a little about probability
>> but I'm very confused by the Vice President's use of the
>> word "probably" when he said yesterday that he had no
>> regrets and felt better after "probably"

>
> [snip] But damnit, just being wrong does not excuse
> illiteracy. (And that brings us back to the Bush
> administration.)

I'm not sure this is a matter of being either wrong or
illiterate. I'm confused because the Vice President attached
a probability statement to an incontrovertible fact; that
would be like answering "Probably" when asked, "Has the US
invaded Iraq?" At the same time, he expressed that he felt
better afterwards, not that he probably felt better
afterwards. I think this means that he has the ability to
feel better from events that may not have occurred...hey,
wait a second...maybe this does fit together after all.

 

[Robert Alexande]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Davey Crockett wrote:
> >
> > Probability now? Just don't confuse Statistics with
> > Probability. They might be often related, but are not
> > the same thing at all..........
>
> I used to think I kinda knew a little about probability
> but I'm very confused by the Vice President's use of the
> word "probably" when he said yesterday that he had no
> regrets and felt better after "probably" telling

>

Something about Leahy. He also got Orrin Hatch to come
unglued last year-- also with a live mic around.

God, is this OT??

I'm putting my 'Lance 6' sign out in the front yard
tomorrow.

mr. bob

 

[Ilan Vardi]

Benjamin Weiner <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<40ddf70f$1@darkstar>...
>
> A couple months ago I went on a little rampage after
> reading an abstract with this sentence, trying to claim
> that a particular phenomenon was worthy of note:
>
> The random probability of such an occurrence is
> significantly less than 3%.
>
> What the hell does that mean? What's significantly less
> than 3% ? 2 percent? 2.5 percent? If it was 3%, would they
> claim it was significantly less than 4% ? It's still
> actually uninteresting, because it's an a posteriori
> probability, and it turns out that enough observations (on
> order of 30) have been made that you should expect
> something with a 3% chance to turn up. But damnit, just
> being wrong does not excuse illiteracy. (And that brings
> us back to the Bush administration.)

Not to mention the redundant term "random probability". A
very long time ago when I was a first year student in
University, I had the misfortune of taking a psychology
class. One of the practice exercises for the final exam had
the question: If you did a study of the general population
but your sample was 50% college professors then what would
you conclude and the answer they wanted was "the sample was
not random". I went to the professor to point out that this
answer was incorrect, but he didn't understand what I was
talking about. Then I talked to the teaching assistants
(grad students) and one of them started talking about the "T
test". I got a B in that class (the only one I got in
University).

-ilan

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On 27 Jun 2004 03:55:55 -0700, Ilan Vardi wrote:
>Not to mention the redundant term "random probability".
>[...] If you did a study of the general population but
>your sample was 50% college professors then what would you
>conclude and the answer they wanted was "the sample was
>not random".

Well, it probably wasn't.

 

[Smmb]

"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not sure this is a matter of being either wrong or
> illiterate. I'm confused because the Vice President
> attached a probability statement to an incontrovertible
> fact; that would be like answering "Probably" when asked,
> "Has the US invaded Iraq?" At the same time, he expressed
> that he felt better afterwards, not that he probably felt
> better afterwards. I think this means that he has the
> ability to feel better from events that may not have
> occurred...hey, wait a second...maybe this does fit
> together after all.

You are confusing communication with math, right ?
Cheney's language says, he is reluctant to admit to having
said something, so he sidles up to a qualified admission.
If he said "it", and he thinks that this is more likely
than not, then, well, OK, that's life. And if he didn't
say it, then he surely meant the thought, and the outward
expression was just missing, and this way gets to say that
he should have said it.

Where did you get the idea that probability (a word) is used
exclusively in the domain of reason ?
--
Bonne route,

Sandy Paris FR

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:59:41 +0200, SMMB wrote:
> You are confusing communication with math, right ?

A common mistake among mathematicians and physicists.

 

[Robert Chung]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:59:41 +0200, SMMB wrote:
>> You are confusing communication with math, right ?
>
> A common mistake among mathematicians and physicists.

oogle.com/groups?selm=3fcdfac6%240%2421324%2479c14f64%40nan-
newsreader-02.noos.net

 

[Robert Chung]

SMMB wrote:
> Cheney's language says, he is reluctant to admit to having
> said something, so he sidles up to a qualified admission.
> If he said "it", and he thinks that this is more likely
> than not, then, well, OK, that's life. And if he didn't
> say it, then he surely meant the thought, and the outward
> expression was just missing, and this way gets to say that
> he should have said it.

I guess that's one way to put it. Another is to say he lies:
http://www.overspun.com/video/DailyShow.cheneylies.rm

 

[Ilan Vardi]

Ewoud Dronkert <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 27 Jun 2004 03:55:55 -0700, Ilan Vardi wrote:
> >Not to mention the redundant term "random probability".
> >[...] If you did a study of the general population but
> >your sample was 50% college professors then what would
> >you conclude and the answer they wanted was "the sample
> >was not random".
>
> Well, it probably wasn't.

I think you were trying to be humourous, but in fact, this
is exactly the correct answer.

-ilan

 

[Benjamin Weiner]

Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> Benjamin Weiner wrote:

> > [snip] But damnit, just being wrong does not excuse
> > illiteracy. (And that brings us back to the Bush
> > administration.)

> I'm not sure this is a matter of being either wrong or
> illiterate. I'm confused because the Vice President
> attached a probability statement to an incontrovertible
> fact; that would be like answering "Probably" when asked,
> "Has the US invaded Iraq?" At the same time, he expressed
> that he felt better afterwards, not that he probably felt
> better afterwards. I think this means that he has the
> ability to feel better from events that may not have
> occurred...hey, wait a second...maybe this does fit
> together after all.

Probabilities can be attached to past events or matters of
fact. Did I have a cup of coffee before 10:30 am on June 27
2003 (this day one year ago)? I'd give it a 98% chance, but
not certain - maybe I drank tea, or overslept. I'm 100%
certain about yesterday's coffee, but the VP is a busy man
and perhaps directing profanities at elected officials in
his vicinity is a regular enough event that he doesn't
recall individual instances. But he can still be certain
about the post facto feeling of self-satisfaction at the end
of a long day of tirades.

Put more concisely, probabilities are statements about
degree of ignorance. That's why the administration is
expert on them.

 

[Robert Chung]

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
>
> Put more concisely, probabilities are statements about
> degree of ignorance. That's why the administration is
> expert on them.

Hmmm. You may have a point, though I suspect it's more about
wishful thinking than uncertainty.

I notice that Cheney said he "probably" had more information
on the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection than the 9/11 commission.

 

[Robert Chung]

Kirby Krieger wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:2k69jfF185gd4U1@uni-
> berlin.de...
>> Davey Crockett wrote:
>>>
>>> Probability now? Just don't confuse Statistics with
>>> Probability. They might be often related, but are not
>>> the same thing at all..........
>>
>> I used to think I kinda knew a little about probability
>> but I'm very confused by the Vice President's use of the
>> word "probably" when he said yesterday that he had no
>> regrets and felt better after "probably"

>>
>>
>

> yourself!" His self-absolvement was even more revealing:
> he justified his incivility by saying that it made him
> feel real good afterwards, and left it for his
> interlocutor to conclude that therefore he had done a
> right and just thing.

http://tomburka.com/archives/2004_06.php#000560

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Kirby Krieger wrote:
> > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:2k69jfF185gd4U1@uni-
> > berlin.de...
> >> Davey Crockett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Probability now? Just don't confuse Statistics with
> >>> Probability. They might be often related, but are not
> >>> the same thing at all..........
> >>
> >> I used to think I kinda knew a little about probability
> >> but I'm very confused by the Vice President's use of
> >> the word "probably" when he said yesterday that he had
> >> no regrets and felt better after "probably"

> >>
> >>
> >

> > yourself!" His self-absolvement was even more revealing:
> > he justified his incivility by saying that it made him
> > feel real good afterwards, and left it for his
> > interlocutor to conclude that therefore he had done a
> > right and just thing.
>
> http://tomburka.com/archives/2004_06.php#000560

http://billmon.org/archives/newcheney.gif

--
tanx, Howard

"The fickleness of fame and fortune's
caprice Together changed the life of Mason
Reese" Alice Donut

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?