Apologies for the more infrequent posts this last week or so. I’ve been cogitating. And my cogits don’t run as fast as they used to. I’ve been trying to come up with simple ways of demonstrating my concern over what I can only view as a mis-categorization
Super - thanks for this. The Monty Hall problem came up in discussion about this time last year when I was trying to wake people up to the madness. It is (another) example of how a collective delusion can gain enough momentum "because they can't be wrong".
Thus all this 'stay in your lane' and 'trust the science(TM)' nonsense these last two years has been particularly galling. We are going through the most excruciating predictable (and predicted) "I told you so" period the world has ever seen. And there is more to come.
The Monty Hall problem episode was fascinating - as you say, one of the world's top mathematicians (some might say THE top mathematician) got it wrong.
Science is a funny old business - I don't think I have as much right to an opinion as someone like a Feynman, for example, when it comes to science. I'm just not in the same league as someone with that kind of intellect. Doesn't mean they're always right - just that they have a far greater probability of being right on a given scientific issue than I do. So there is some justification for a (kind of) 'trust' in the experts.
But you really don't need Feynman levels of intellect to see the egregious BS that has been spouted by 'official' bodies when it comes to covid. What is fascinating is the number of very-well respected scientists who do seem to go along with the narrative - it baffles the heck out of me. Although having said that, in the university where I worked most of my colleagues in the physics dept could see through the official bollox. None of us were, however, in a position where we could speak freely without getting into trouble.
I had to wait until I had made up my mind to resign and move back to the UK before I started to speak out a bit.
Once again you have simplified what I knew/know, but have had trouble explaining to others. I cannot remember, but I believe it was something I read by Walter Willams or Thomas Sowell that described the difference between understanding a thing and being a master of a thing.
A master of a subject can explain it in an understandable way to someone who has zero knowledge of it.
Thanks - much appreciated. You are too kind - I am no master of probability. I have to be sooooo careful, and I still screw it up more times than I care to admit!
I am not a math whiz but I sort of understood this. I live in Manitoba, Canada and have been trying to understand how the government comes up with the statistics they post on their website for risk. Right now, they show you are 4 x more likely to end up in the hospital and 7 x more likely to end up in the ICU or dead of you are unvaccinated vs. vaccinated. They also post the percentages of vaccinated and unvaccinated but the numbers don’t make sense to me. I have been thinking that is because the numbers themselves are not valid but it feels like it is something more. Could you have a look at the Government of Manitoba website and comment? Would be much appreciated.
I'll try at some point but the problem with a lot (pretty much most, in fact) of government/official stats is they don't really give a proper breakdown of the data. It's not enough to draw any definitive conclusions. You really need to be able to remove as many biases as possible and the data is usually not sufficient to do this. I don't know whether this is deliberate, but I have my suspicions.
Wow. Great post for understanding the predicament we're in as far as good data and stats are concerned. Especially when there is a corporate government narrative and agenda to keep it confused.
My favourite Monty Hall explanation makes the situation more complicated first (sometimes this trick works in mathematics): imagine there is not one, but two candidates. The first always switches, the second never does. The second clearly wins in one third of games, and one of them has to win, so it's two thirds for the first.
Super - thanks for this. The Monty Hall problem came up in discussion about this time last year when I was trying to wake people up to the madness. It is (another) example of how a collective delusion can gain enough momentum "because they can't be wrong".
An additional point to note about the Monty Hall problem is that some incredibly bright and gifted mathematicians got it wrong: https://ima.org.uk/4552/dont-switch-mathematicians-answer-monty-hall-problem-wrong/ and https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JAIU3iz_f3EC&lpg=PA2&ots=p-wYf-PVLW&dq=which+door+has+the+cadillac&pg=PA5&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thus all this 'stay in your lane' and 'trust the science(TM)' nonsense these last two years has been particularly galling. We are going through the most excruciating predictable (and predicted) "I told you so" period the world has ever seen. And there is more to come.
Thanks Alex - much appreciated
The Monty Hall problem episode was fascinating - as you say, one of the world's top mathematicians (some might say THE top mathematician) got it wrong.
Science is a funny old business - I don't think I have as much right to an opinion as someone like a Feynman, for example, when it comes to science. I'm just not in the same league as someone with that kind of intellect. Doesn't mean they're always right - just that they have a far greater probability of being right on a given scientific issue than I do. So there is some justification for a (kind of) 'trust' in the experts.
But you really don't need Feynman levels of intellect to see the egregious BS that has been spouted by 'official' bodies when it comes to covid. What is fascinating is the number of very-well respected scientists who do seem to go along with the narrative - it baffles the heck out of me. Although having said that, in the university where I worked most of my colleagues in the physics dept could see through the official bollox. None of us were, however, in a position where we could speak freely without getting into trouble.
I had to wait until I had made up my mind to resign and move back to the UK before I started to speak out a bit.
That is if they don't incarcerate or kill everyone capable of saying "I told you so."
PS. Oh, and this: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/pigeons-outperform-humans-at-the-monty-hall-dilemma
Once again you have simplified what I knew/know, but have had trouble explaining to others. I cannot remember, but I believe it was something I read by Walter Willams or Thomas Sowell that described the difference between understanding a thing and being a master of a thing.
A master of a subject can explain it in an understandable way to someone who has zero knowledge of it.
Thanks - much appreciated. You are too kind - I am no master of probability. I have to be sooooo careful, and I still screw it up more times than I care to admit!
Wow. Finally an explanation I can wrap my head around. And it only took some balls. Much appreciated. I will be sharing this with my laymen friends.
Thank you - I'm honoured. Much appreciated.
Very good. This fits well with El Gato Malo's "Bayesian Datacrime" article: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bayesian-datacrime-defining-vaccine
The cat has been hitting balls out of the stadium almost since day 1.
I'm in awe
Very good demonstration how this sleight of hand can make a huge difference
I am not a math whiz but I sort of understood this. I live in Manitoba, Canada and have been trying to understand how the government comes up with the statistics they post on their website for risk. Right now, they show you are 4 x more likely to end up in the hospital and 7 x more likely to end up in the ICU or dead of you are unvaccinated vs. vaccinated. They also post the percentages of vaccinated and unvaccinated but the numbers don’t make sense to me. I have been thinking that is because the numbers themselves are not valid but it feels like it is something more. Could you have a look at the Government of Manitoba website and comment? Would be much appreciated.
I'll try at some point but the problem with a lot (pretty much most, in fact) of government/official stats is they don't really give a proper breakdown of the data. It's not enough to draw any definitive conclusions. You really need to be able to remove as many biases as possible and the data is usually not sufficient to do this. I don't know whether this is deliberate, but I have my suspicions.
Wow. Great post for understanding the predicament we're in as far as good data and stats are concerned. Especially when there is a corporate government narrative and agenda to keep it confused.
thanks Nova - much appreciated
I added this article to my list of today's best substacks
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/the-best-of-todays-substacks-17-february/comments?utm_source=url
thanks - the shout-out is much appreciated
My favourite Monty Hall explanation makes the situation more complicated first (sometimes this trick works in mathematics): imagine there is not one, but two candidates. The first always switches, the second never does. The second clearly wins in one third of games, and one of them has to win, so it's two thirds for the first.
I like that!