Counter-Intuitive Science

a red flame is less energetic then a blue flame. (Or infrared is less energetic then ultraviolet)Although it's not counter-intuitive per se, but it is since in our cultures we represent red as hot, heat, fire and blue as cold, ice etc.

I'll start by saying that I don't use this argument because it is simply normal when you consider all the planets in the universe that one would have the characteristics the earth has.However, I just wanna point out that this is a strawman. As far as I know, the argument isn't ''if we were even the least bit closer we'd burn up and the least bit farther away we'd freeze'', it's simply that earth is at the right distance for life (liquid water) and it is usually coupled with all the other factors the earth has that makes life possible here.

I think the whole point of the strawman fallacy is to take the weaker/est form of an argument as representative of the argument instead of the more reasoned version ...

I'll be honest, I hadn't heard of anything like it. What there seems to be is one person sayign something stupid on FB, and everybody thinking this represents a real creationist position.It's a bit like the old ''If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys ?''. Sure, you'll encounter it once in a while on the internet, but does anyone really think this is an actual argument you can find in creationist litterature ?Because if I've never heard it before, and it's blatantly stupid, then chances are it wasn't ''claimed and insisted on'' by a ''parade of creationists'' ... As I said, I'm not fond of the argument. Besides it is usually coupled with all the other factors that makes life on earth possible.

I never do well with these kind of questions:I think it could have at the moment you jump, since you are pushing on the ground to get yourself a vertical, upward acceleration.Couldn't when you came down since the only force in play is your weight (and the normal force of the ground)

Two identically shaped objects will have the same air resistance, but won't fall at the same speed if they don't have the same mass ...This is why when skiing, a bigger person will still go faster even though he has more air resistance.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Quite funny you mention this since I stumbled upon the it's wiki page this week (apparently it's a well known phenomenon in statistics)

But the Mounty Hall problem gets even harder to explain when you get into the the fact that if the presentator knows where the car is or not has a direct impact on your chances of winning.Because imagine two almost identical scenario where you have a choice between door A,B,C. You choose A, the presentator opens door C and chose a goat in both scenarios.Now, if in the first scenario he knows where the prize is, then you should change your choice when asked to. While in the second (seemingly identical) scenario he does not know where the prize is, then it doesn't matter if you change or not, you'll have the same odds of winning.

After some deep memory thinking, I found it:Simpson's paradox - WikipediaThe school Dr.A was talking about seems to be Berkeley (see second example on the page)

If the presentator, not knowing where the car is, opens the door with the car. The probability your door has the car immediatly goes down to zero. But if, again not knowing, he opens the goat, then your door's probability does go up to 1/2.Now as I said, as much as some find the original version of the Mounty Hall problem counter-intuitive, those who will understand it will find this next situation equally hard to understand. (And inversely, those who think the initial case gives you a 50/50 chnce won't have any problem coming to the, correct this time, conclusion that it is 50/50 in the seond case)Marilyn Vos Savante explained this in here 06 column of ''Ask Marilyn ?'' (She was the one who made the Mounty hall problem 'famous' to the public when writing about it in here column in 1990)

Ok, I'll give more reasoning:(1/3) You pick the door with the car : Presentator will open a door with a goat (sit.A)(2/3) You pick a door with a goat : Presentator will open a door with a goat (sit.B) or with the car (sit.C)Now, this is the full scenario when the presentator does not know where the care is. But since I said the presentator did reveal a goat, it means you are in either Sit.A or Sit.B, and it is pretty straightforward to see that, once a goat is revealed, the odds of your door having the car is 1/2.

It is because I said this: I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about when you find yourself in one of the situations where he reveals a goat and not in the situation where he reveals a car.AbE When you say, ''I know it sounds anal'' and ask if it translates, you are talking translate from what to what ? From engliush to french, from french to english, from UK english to US english ? I didn't quite understandEdited by slevesque, : No reason given.

See post no136A third of the time, he opens a goat and you chose the car. (Sit.A)A third of the time, he opens a goat and you chose a goat (Sit.B)A third of the time, he opens a car and you chose a goat (Sit.C)Since the presentator opens a goat, you know you are in situation A or B, and you know each situation is just as likely as the other (33% each), then you also know that since you are as likely to be in sit.A then B, then you are just as likely to have the car behind your door then behind the other door. Hence a 50/50 chance

We're in a counter-intuitive thread ? remember The reality is that it does matter, as I have shown twice previously. But let's take a real life example and hopefully it will seem clearer:Everyone knows the game show deal or no deal, right ? 26 cases, each with a money prize in it ranging from a 1 cent to 1M$. You pick a case at the beginning of the show, etc. etc.Now let's suppose you're at the game show, and you go all the way to the grand finale between the last two cases. In one of either your chosen case, or the last case left standing, is 1M$. In the other, 1 penny. Now the host at this point asks you: ''Do you want to change your case ?''Now, while considering this important question, you remember the Mounty Hall problem. ''My box definitely has a 1/26 chance of having the 1M$, I should change it for the other who has 25/26 chances''. But as you are about to say yes, another thought pops up: ''Yeah but by the same reasoning, my box only has a 1/26 chance of having the penny. This means I should keep it since the other has a 25/26 chance of having that penny''. In the face of these two contradicting conclusions, you face becomes becomes red as the mental battle rages in your head as to why this is the case. And while the host asks for medical attention, since you obviously aren't feeling red, you realize that it's all a matter of what you focus your reasoning on: if you focus on the million, then you should change, but if you focus on the penny, you should keep. Realizing you obviously cannot will the million to be wherever you want it to be, you come to the conclusion that the reasoning is flawed, and that most probably, to change or not to change, that is not the question.You see, this is because the million is not intrinsically any more special then the penny, if the boxes are open at random. You can't focus a ''mounty hall type'' reasoning on the million any more then you can on the penny.But, if the boxes are opened by someone who knows where the million is, and on purpose never opens it, leaving it to be the last case standing, then it becomes special. Then, it already possesses a 25/26 chance of having the million in the eyes of the contestant , even before any cases are yet open, because he knows that whatever cases are open, at the end of the day out of the 25 boxes, one will remain, and the million will not have been opened.

I'm not forgetting to include sit.C, it's just that nothing worth of interest comes out of doing so.Including sit.C is just like evaluating all the outcomes when no door is yet opened. All it tells us is that when no one chose a door, no one opened a door, you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning the car. Which is self evident.What is interesting is when comparing Sit.A+Sit.B with the Mounty Hall problem, and how it seems counter-intuitive that even though physically the same things happened (you picked, he opened a goat, you change ?) the fact that the presentator opened the goat on purpose or on accident hs a direct impact on how the probabilities are distributed between the two remaining doors.