The Nature of Scepticism

The surfaces of the tables are the same shape and size.Print it out, cut it up and compare.

You forgot one: Proof: A measure of how much alcohol (ethanol) is contained in an alcoholic beverage. The term was originally used in the United Kingdom and was defined as 7/4 times the alcohol by volume (ABV). The UK now uses the ABV standard instead of alcohol proof. In the United States, alcoholic proof is defined as twice the percentage of ABV.This is proof that proof has been proven. No pudding need for putting this proof into because the proof is actually in the proof.

Can you provide proof of this?Edited by AZPaul3, : 6 words. Just 6 fuck'n words and I can't get em straight. Time to go.

No. Not at all. Throwing a 4, 1, 5 in succession does not alter your chances of throwing a 6 on the next roll.Your wolf detector has only a 1/365 chance of being right each - and - every - day, regardless of how many times you try.

If your reader is always faithful and is displaying 6 then the outcome of the 1-6 probability came in as a 6 If your device is a faithful liar then when it says 6 you are assured the roll was not 6. But the roll itself was a 1-6 chance. If the roll landed on 6 then your faithful liar would display a different number. The 1/365 accuracy rate is indeed established by the number of false positives experienced. Once established that rate, unless you change the detector, remains. I agree. There appears to be a vernacular problem here. I'm thinking you are looking at one situation and I am seeing another.Are you saying that after 19 days of false positives you can tentatively say the next day has a 1-20 probability of being right? Then at 39 days of constant false positives you are now saying that the next day has a 1-40 chance of being correct?If so then this is all basakwards. You cannot say anything about the probabilities until you hit on a true positive.I will grant you that on the 39th day you can say that the next day has "at least a 1-40 chance" with the caveat that it may be considerably more than 1-40 and is thus unknown. You have only placed a lower bound. Well, duh.Is this too pedantic?

At what point? When testing to see how reliable the thing is or once the baseline has been established by having hit a true positive?

Agreed. Sorry to have taken your time away from the real issue here. Later.