Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
150 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 149 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,496 Year: 7,244/23,288 Month: 1,150/1,214 Week: 162/303 Day: 2/36 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4979
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 57 of 271 (691017)
02-19-2013 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
02-18-2013 7:24 PM


Re: no moving for me

The surfaces of the tables are the same shape and size.

Print it out, cut it up and compare.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2013 7:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4979
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 87 of 271 (691548)
02-22-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Coyote
02-22-2013 9:31 PM


Re: On Proof
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2013 9:31 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2013 10:18 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4979
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 90 of 271 (691555)
02-22-2013 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coyote
02-22-2013 10:18 PM


Re: On Proof
And actually, proofs are very common in photography too.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2013 10:18 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2013 1:05 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4979
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 237 of 271 (717082)
01-23-2014 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Modulous
01-23-2014 1:29 PM


The 6 Is Up.
Therefore - would it not be true that multiple false positives actually do effect the probability that the next alarm will be correct?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 1:29 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2014 7:25 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4979
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 244 of 271 (717116)
01-24-2014 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Modulous
01-24-2014 7:25 AM


Re: The 6 Is Up.
Conditional probabilities, sir. If the dice reader says it is a six then what is the probability that the dice rolled a six?

If your reader is always faithful and is displaying 6 then the outcome of the 1-6 probability came in as a 6

If I told you that my dice reader is designed to never display the correct result ...

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.

Your wolf detector has only a 1/365 chance of being right each - and - every - day, regardless of how many times you try.

Exactly. Where did this number come from? Did you derive this number from the number of false positives?

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.

If so, then you agree that the number of false positives do effect the probability that the next alarm will be correct.

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.

But can you not see that as the number of false reports goes up, our confidence in the reports goes down?

Well, duh.

Is this too pedantic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2014 7:25 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2014 2:11 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4979
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 247 of 271 (717136)
01-24-2014 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Modulous
01-24-2014 2:11 PM


Re: The 6 Is Up.
So now are you agreeing with the statement 'multiple false positives actually do effect the probability that the next alarm will be correct'?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2014 2:11 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2014 2:57 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4979
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 249 of 271 (717156)
01-24-2014 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Modulous
01-24-2014 2:57 PM


Re: The 6 Is Up.
Agreed. Sorry to have taken your time away from the real issue here. Later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2014 2:57 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020