|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2011 : 07:52:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Only because you know the generating conditions. |
And we know all the generating conditions relevant to Watson's feeling threatened.| In my example, if I didn't tell you the initial conditions of the dice, you'd only be able to state that 1% of the rolls come up 6. |
Yes. Nobody is saying anything different. Nobody is trying to "determine the actual probability of EG being a rapist," as you wrongly claim.| But you are so set on missing the point that you have, indeed, missed the point. Well done. |
So you say. You seem to be unable to offer a fair description of my argument, and you are refusing to elaborate on yours, so whatever your point is will have to remain obscure.| Well, that just shows your bias: you haven't criticized Kazez for her errors of fact. |
So? I'm commenting on one paragraph she wrote (out of the first thing of hers I have ever read), but I'm supposed to go back and research her history and point out her errors? What the fuck are you smoking? |
You commented approvingly on one paragraph which contains at least one error of fact.| I've pointed out your error a dozen times. You can't go from the set (units) of "all men" to the set (units) of "elevator guy" and say that because in the set of "all men" 2% will rape a stranger in their lifetime that "elevator guy" has a 2% chance to commit a rape. |
You must be kidding. By that logic, "grams" and "gram" are distinct units.
If I have 1850 cubic meters (note the plural) of hydrogen, and I know there are 37 oxygen molecules floating around in it, then I can indeed state that there are 0.02 O2/cubic meter (note the singular), on average. Or in other words, if I pick a particular cubic meter of gas, there's a 2% chance it will have a O2 molecule in it. The two statements are synonymous, because "cubic meterS" and "cubic meter" are the same unit.
To bring it back to biology, if 10% of the human population has a plantaris muscle, then I can indeed say that a randomly selected person has a 10% chance of having a plantaris muscle, knowing nothing else about the person. Because "people" and "person" are the same unit.| You know what? Fuck you. That's what. I now oficially regret coming back here and attempting to explain why you are wrong. Please feel free to continue being wrong, I no longer give a fuck about trying to convince you. |
I appreciate the favor. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2011 : 07:53:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Dave W.
(Extra credit question that's off topic: if there are 50 red socks and 50 blue socks in the drawer, and the lights are out, how many do I need to pull out before I am guaranteed to have drawn a matching pair? |
3
What do I win? |
A cookie. You'll find it on your hard drive. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2011 : 20:24:57 [Permalink]
|
If anyone is left paying attention, here is why Dave_W is still wrong.
Take my set of 100 dice and pick one. What is the chance it will roll a 6? You know nothing about the dice at all except that everytime you roll all 100 one of them turns up a six. You'd be tempted to say that the chance is 1%.
Here's why you would be wrong. The dice are all loaded, 99 of them always roll a three, one always rolls a six. If you know this you can say the chance the die will roll a six is either 1 or 0. (The chance you picked the die loaded to roll six is 1%, but that is a different event entirely)
You roll the die and it comes up as six, you roll it a hundred times and it comes up a six. What are the odds it will roll a six? 100% What are the odds it will roll a three? 0%
In all of that the only thing that actually changes is your knowledge of the generating conditions, yet the probability you can state changes drastically. It is obvious that your initial data on the dice is insufficient to make any prediction of how one of them picked at random will roll until you aquire more data about the individual die. That data is only useful when looking at all of them together.
That is why statistics that see patterns in large groups are not useful for predicting the behavior of a single individual.
When you pick out a die from my 100 you have a 1% chance of picking the one that rolls a six, but that event is not related to the actual behavior of the die. There are two seperate and unrelated events and it is a mistake to conflate the odds of you picking the die loaded for 6 with the odds of that die actually rolling a six.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2011 : 21:44:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If anyone is left paying attention, here is why Dave_W is still wrong. |
Yes, Dude is done talking to me, so he's going to lecture the rest of you on bad probabilities. This is absolutely brilliant as a rhetorical tactic, but does absolutely nothing to help his argument regarding why Rebecca Watson's reaction to Elevator Guy was sexist. It's a ruse. An utterly illogical ruse to win a failed argument.Take my set of 100 dice and pick one. What is the chance it will roll a 6? You know nothing about the dice at all except that everytime you roll all 100 one of them turns up a six. You'd be tempted to say that the chance is 1%.
Here's why you would be wrong. The dice are all loaded, 99 of them always roll a three, one always rolls a six. If you know this you can say the chance the die will roll a six is either 1 or 0. (The chance you picked the die loaded to roll six is 1%, but that is a different event entirely)
You roll the die and it comes up as six, you roll it a hundred times and it comes up a six. What are the odds it will roll a six? 100% What are the odds it will roll a three? 0% |
Well, sure. If I draw the blue sock once, it will always be blue. The generating condition is not rolling the die, because rolling the die does nothing random. Dude is purposefully pulling a bait-and-switch here.
Popper says that to properly interpret the probabilities, we must consider single events to be instances of a repeated experiment with all the conditions held the same. Dude is saying that the repeated experiment is the rolling of the die. The obvious, natural way to repeat his suggested experiment with the loaded dice, though, is to randomly pick again.
Specifically, my claim is that if X percent of a specified group of Y items have trait Z, then randomly picking a single Y from the group, one will have an X percent chance of having picked one with trait Z. This is straightforward. Dude's objection is that if we repeatedly test a single particular selected Y for trait Z, we will never see the test change its results. That particular Y will always either have trait Z or it will not. Duh. That's why the sock analogy cut through the die-rolling baloney, and because it demolishes his argument, it's why Dude ignored the sock analogy completely.
In fact, with regard to Elevator Guy, "meeting a randomly selected male" is the primary generating condition. In Dude's dice analogy, it would be "picking a randomly selected male and then meeting him over and over again." Thus, the analogy is fatally flawed and Dude's probability argument simply doesn't apply in any rational way to the argument I've been making. Dude wants us to determine the probability of EG being a rapist by having Watson meet EG in the elevator over and over and over again. But that was never the point. It's Dude's red herring.| In all of that the only thing that actually changes is your knowledge of the generating conditions, yet the probability you can state changes drastically. It is obvious that your initial data on the dice is insufficient to make any prediction of how one of them picked at random will roll until you aquire more data about the individual die. |
Actually, that's exactly what I've been saying. Watson had minimal information to work with, we all know that. She wasn't trying to "determine the actual probability of of EG being a rapist" (a claim that Dude made but refuses to support in any way), she determined that he was a threat of some vague sort. Dude thinks it was sexist of her to do so, apparently because she should have waited to make such a determination until he'd either raped her or not, and feeling threatened by someone is completely unjustified if that someone does nothing bad (I say "apparently" because Dude refuses to engage in a discussion of his argument any longer).| That data is only useful when looking at all of them together. |
Duh.| That is why statistics that see patterns in large groups are not useful for predicting the behavior of a single individual. |
This is Dude's fallback strawman again. Nobody was, is, or will be trying to "predict[] the behavior of a single individual" based on the knowledge that some percentage of human males will commit a sexual offense in their lifetimes.| When you pick out a die from my 100 you have a 1% chance of picking the one that rolls a six, but that event is not related to the actual behavior of the die. There are two seperate and unrelated events and it is a mistake to conflate the odds of you picking the die loaded for 6 with the odds of that die actually rolling a six. |
Yes, it is a mistake to insist that the generating conditions for a hypothetically repeated experiment are different from what they would need to be for the experiment to make sense. It's an even bigger mistake to do so after insisting that Popper would agree with the particular argument one is making by citing Popper's paper about ensuring that one has selected the correct generating conditions for a probability argument. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HoraceRumpole
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2011 : 10:01:32 [Permalink]
|
On the topic of liking Rebecca Watson, I don't know her personally, but I can say this:
1. In my opinion, she overreacted to the elevator incident. She's entitled to her feelings, but having heard all the discussions since the event was announced, my impression is that she brought the issue up as illustrative of discrimination and misogyny. The event is neither. Moreover, the event more properly seems to me to be an example of a man who treated a woman like an equal, asked a question and took no for an answer. My opinion, of course, will generate all sorts of vitriol against me. I'll be described as clueless, and a "mansplainer." All I can say is that I disagree. I think I do get it, and I think that those telling me I don't get it, well, they don't get it.
2. I think that the way Watson and her supporters acted towards anyone who took my position, women and men included, like Stef McGraw and others, is emblematic of the way "Skepchick" does its business. Skepchick is a website that is supposed to be about skepticism and science, with a slant that encourages more female participation. However, what Skepchick has evolved into is a dogmatic activist website with a cause. It uses skepticism when it suits Skepchick's purposes, but where skepticism threatens the causes of choice, it is skepticism that goes out the window. The website is portrayed as having a fairly open forum for discussion and debate about the various topics, but the discussion is anything but open. Contrary opinions are routinely shouted down, and the harassment of anyone not agreeing with the Skepchicks is graphic, profane and sexist against males. People are banned from that site for mere disagreement, and Skepchick members who excoriate others by telling the to "fuck off" and calling them names are not in the least cautioned. Harassment is allowed, if it is meted out by members of Skepchick that hold the right opinion against those that hold the wrong opinion.
3. Watson has no real qualifications in skepticism or science. She is some sort of communications major, and has done nothing on her own to develop any knowledge of the sciences. She basically reads topical news articles and Wikipedia and reports back what she's read. Her talks at skeptic/atheist events routinely involve avoiding any in depth discussion. They are filled with stories about how she got drunk, or will get drunk, how she hasn't slept, and goofy stories about what her and wacky friends were up to. She giggles a lot. Then she steers the conversation to her brand of "feminism," and lectures the audience on compelling issues like, "things nasty people send me on the internets," and "don't be a Dick." She is well-qualified maybe for a fun-filled conference designed to introduce middle-schoolers to skepticism/atheism, but beyond that, for her to share stages with the likes of Richard Dawkins is mind-boggling. It's embarrassing to Dawkins.
Anyway, I'd like there to be less of the Skepchicks. And, I certainly don't want them invited to more conferences. So, for those of you conference organizers out there...please, invite one of the myriad experienced, qualified, intelligent female scientists and skeptics out there who have accomplished great things. They're out there. Don't insult the audience by bringing on giggling "chicks" and pretending that that is the best contribution women can make. There are many women who are serious and who have done serious things. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2011 : 10:14:02 [Permalink]
|
| Wow I thought the dead rose on Halloween and Easter, not thanksgiving! |
|
|
|
HoraceRumpole
New Member
2 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2011 : 12:11:27 [Permalink]
|
HraceRumpol. Well... Actually, popularizing skepticism is what Watson does, and there is nothing wrong with that. Do you actually think that she would be part of the SGU podcast if she wasn't contributing to it? Ask Steven Novella. Also, it was the Skepchicks who set up clinics for free vaccinations. And an ongoing discussion about woman in skepticism, and feminism in skepticism are legitimate topics when discussing our community at large. Whatever it is you have against Watson, she is still an asset to our community.
Many of us do not have degrees in science. That has never been a precondition for being a skeptic or for speaking out on matters of concern to skeptics. (Would you like a list of male skeptics who do not have science degrees? Prominent skeptics at that.) The promotion of science, logic and critical thinking does not require a degree in science. Being a skeptic with a degree in communication, when what we are trying to do is promote skepticism, is not an unrelated degree.
As for your not liking Watson's displeasure over being propositioned on an elevator, you are free to not agree. But I thought Dawkins train ran of its rails in his criticism of Watson. And I am far from alone in thinking that.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2011 : 15:07:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HoraceRumpole
On the topic of liking Rebecca Watson, I don't know her personally, but I can say this: |
You can say quite a lot. Did you need to?| 1. In my opinion, she overreacted to the elevator incident. She's entitled to her feelings, but having heard all the discussions since the event was announced, my impression is that she brought the issue up as illustrative of discrimination and misogyny. |
Don't know how you get that impression. She clearly brought it up as an example of someone being creepy.Right.| Moreover, the event more properly seems to me to be an example of a man who treated a woman like an equal, asked a question and took no for an answer. |
So you wouldn't find getting propositioned by a man you don't know at four AM to be the least bit creepy?| My opinion, of course, will generate all sorts of vitriol against me. I'll be described as clueless, and a "mansplainer." All I can say is that I disagree. I think I do get it, and I think that those telling me I don't get it, well, they don't get it. |
All I think is that you're monumentally prejudiced against the people here.| 2. I think that the way Watson and her supporters acted towards anyone who took my position, women and men included, like Stef McGraw and others, is emblematic of the way "Skepchick" does its business. Skepchick is a website that is supposed to be about skepticism and science, with a slant that encourages more female participation. However, what Skepchick has evolved into is a dogmatic activist website with a cause. It uses skepticism when it suits Skepchick's purposes, but where skepticism threatens the causes of choice, it is skepticism that goes out the window. The website is portrayed as having a fairly open forum for discussion and debate about the various topics, but the discussion is anything but open. Contrary opinions are routinely shouted down, and the harassment of anyone not agreeing with the Skepchicks is graphic, profane and sexist against males. People are banned from that site for mere disagreement, and Skepchick members who excoriate others by telling the to "fuck off" and calling them names are not in the least cautioned. Harassment is allowed, if it is meted out by members of Skepchick that hold the right opinion against those that hold the wrong opinion. |
Harassment? On an Internet forum? Are you serious?| 3. Watson has no real qualifications in skepticism or science. |
Ah, now an attempt at irrelevant character assassination. Brilliant. That'll score you lots of points here.  | She is some sort of communications major, and has done nothing on her own to develop any knowledge of the sciences. |
Where is your evidence that she's never cracked a science book?| She basically reads topical news articles and Wikipedia and reports back what she's read. Her talks at skeptic/atheist events routinely involve avoiding any in depth discussion. They are filled with stories about how she got drunk, or will get drunk, how she hasn't slept, and goofy stories about what her and wacky friends were up to. She giggles a lot. Then she steers the conversation to her brand of "feminism," and lectures the audience on compelling issues like, "things nasty people send me on the internets," and "don't be a Dick." She is well-qualified maybe for a fun-filled conference designed to introduce middle-schoolers to skepticism/atheism, but beyond that, for her to share stages with the likes of Richard Dawkins is mind-boggling. |
This has something to do with Elevatorgate?| It's embarrassing to Dawkins. |
Please quote Dawkins indicating this.| Anyway, I'd like there to be less of the Skepchicks. |
So you've condemned one of them personally and unnecessarily, and you don't like their forums, but you think that more of them should be gone, too?| And, I certainly don't want them invited to more conferences. So, for those of you conference organizers out there...please, invite one of the myriad experienced, qualified, intelligent female scientists and skeptics out there who have accomplished great things. They're out there. |
Can you name one, or are you just guessing?| Don't insult the audience by bringing on giggling "chicks" and pretending that that is the best contribution women can make. |
Please quote Watson or any other Skepchick describing what you've depicted here as "the best contribution women can make."| There are many women who are serious and who have done serious things. |
A bunch of them even like Rebecca Watson. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2011 : 17:37:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HoraceRumpole
On the topic of liking Rebecca Watson, I don't know her personally, but I can say this:
1. In my opinion, she overreacted to the elevator incident. She's entitled to her feelings, but having heard all the discussions since the event was announced, my impression is that she brought the issue up as illustrative of discrimination and misogyny. The event is neither. Moreover, the event more properly seems to me to be an example of a man who treated a woman like an equal, asked a question and took no for an answer. My opinion, of course, will generate all sorts of vitriol against me. I'll be described as clueless, and a "mansplainer." All I can say is that I disagree. I think I do get it, and I think that those telling me I don't get it, well, they don't get it.
|
More like pointing out that asking someone for coffee at 4 AM after you have announced that you were tired and going to bed is creepy. I think that was the gist of her argument. Not a mysonginist bent.
I don't expect the vitrol here. Different bunch. You have to be a real asshole and attack first to get vitrol and even then it takes a bit.
2. I think that the way Watson and her supporters acted towards anyone who took my position, women and men included, like Stef McGraw and others, is emblematic of the way "Skepchick" does its business. Skepchick is a website that is supposed to be about skepticism and science, with a slant that encourages more female participation. However, what Skepchick has evolved into is a dogmatic activist website with a cause. It uses skepticism when it suits Skepchick's purposes, but where skepticism threatens the causes of choice, it is skepticism that goes out the window. The website is portrayed as having a fairly open forum for discussion and debate about the various topics, but the discussion is anything but open. Contrary opinions are routinely shouted down, and the harassment of anyone not agreeing with the Skepchicks is graphic, profane and sexist against males. People are banned from that site for mere disagreement, and Skepchick members who excoriate others by telling the to "fuck off" and calling them names are not in the least cautioned. Harassment is allowed, if it is meted out by members of Skepchick that hold the right opinion against those that hold the wrong opinion.
|
This isn't Skeptichick's site. And there always have been shrieking twits trying to stifle dissent in many places. Tends not to get traction here.
You have a contrary position. I'm sure that those who do not share that view will be chiming in to request evidence to support your assertions here.
3. Watson has no real qualifications in skepticism or science. She is some sort of communications major, and has done nothing on her own to develop any knowledge of the sciences. She basically reads topical news articles and Wikipedia and reports back what she's read. Her talks at skeptic/atheist events routinely involve avoiding any in depth discussion. They are filled with stories about how she got drunk, or will get drunk, how she hasn't slept, and goofy stories about what her and wacky friends were up to. She giggles a lot. Then she steers the conversation to her brand of "feminism," and lectures the audience on compelling issues like, "things nasty people send me on the internets," and "don't be a Dick." She is well-qualified maybe for a fun-filled conference designed to introduce middle-schoolers to skepticism/atheism, but beyond that, for her to share stages with the likes of Richard Dawkins is mind-boggling. It's embarrassing to Dawkins.
|
What constitutes a qualification in skepticism? It seems that by the examples you choose, you expect someone to be actively involved in scientific research. That is a rather narrow view of skepticism.
Does Dawkins actually say that he is embarrassed to share a stage with Watson? If so, where?
Anyway, I'd like there to be less of the Skepchicks. And, I certainly don't want them invited to more conferences. So, for those of you conference organizers out there...please, invite one of the myriad experienced, qualified, intelligent female scientists and skeptics out there who have accomplished great things. They're out there. Don't insult the audience by bringing on giggling "chicks" and pretending that that is the best contribution women can make. There are many women who are serious and who have done serious things.
|
I'm not really seeing where she hasn't brought someing to the conferences she attends. Recently, it has been about elevatorgate, but I see that as more of an abberation than a pattern. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 02:51:32 [Permalink]
|
1. ^I fixed your spelling for you.^
2. What does that have to do with your brining it back to life elsewhere?
|
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 11/26/2011 02:52:20 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 17:44:46 [Permalink]
|
chefcrsh......
| What does that have to do with your brining it back to life elsewhere? |
Brining, prior to roasting, does wonders for tenderizing a turkey breast otherwise destined for dryness; but suggesting resurrection does sound a little extreme! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I do not like Rebecca Watson (aka skepchick)
