1.  10/17/2002, 02:07 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer Sorry, in a discussion aimed at getting to the truth and realizable facts, imagination I figured was something we shouldn't be using. I've gone swimming and wading in rivers much more than I've tried to cross them so in my mind my interpreation was correct. I'm sorry I couldn't "read between the lines." I guess you don't know enough statisticians. ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
2.  10/17/2002, 02:08 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer If you drown in 6 feet of water, you stand a 1/3 chance of drowning at the most. Sounds good to me, especially when you consider that a worst case scenerio. More statisticians will live than will die. I don't consider it a worst case scenerio. I consider it a **joke**, which you obviously didn't get. You see, the point of the joke is that the statistician FOOLISHLY INSISTED on believing that an AVERAGE is the same thing as the specific depth of the river. "More statisticians will live than will die" What does that mean? My statement was about ONE statistician--remember? The one who DIED because he thought an average was the same as reality?
3.  10/17/2002, 02:08 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer Of course from my experiences it's hard to derive a sample large enough to derive inferential statistics. That's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that upon knowing the tendencies of a population (men to develop heart disease and women to get breast cancer, for instance) there is nothing wrong with using that knowledge. And how exactly does that give any validity to your hypothesized opinions of Jews? ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
4.  10/17/2002, 02:09 PM You are saying I'm using evidence collected in every-day life to predict the tendencies of the population and then use that to predict the tendencies of individuals. I'm saying that having already known the population parameters you can predict individual instances. We are talking about two seperate areas of the logic chain. Therein lies the misunderstanding. As soon as we realize I don't derive population parameters from non-random sampling and it has never been part of my argument, we'll be friends again.
5.  10/17/2002, 02:10 PM Originally posted by Toby And how exactly does that give any validity to your hypothesized opinions of Jews? When someone's country is under threat people tend to dislike that threat. That is a commonly accepted view of humanity. If you disagree, why is that?
6.  10/17/2002, 02:11 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer I assumed that this "man"... Why do you have man in quotes? I said it was my dad's favorite joke. I never said the statistician who drowned was a guy.
7.  10/17/2002, 02:11 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer I never claimed my population parameters were derived from personal experience. Upon what do you base the statement: "knowing someone is Jewish tells [you] something about their opinions regarding the middle east"? You've conducted a study? You were writing off my using of parameters to predict samples. And doing that writes off basic principles of math and statistics. No, I was writing off your analogies in the context of that statement. They simply don't hold water. ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
8.  10/17/2002, 02:11 PM Originally posted by Toby I guess you don't know enough statisticians. Guess not. Didn't you say you were a statistician? That's one.....
9.  10/17/2002, 02:13 PM Originally posted by Toby Upon what do you base the statement: "knowing someone is Jewish tells [you] something about their opinions regarding the middle east"? You've conducted a study Not me. But there have been a plethora of polls, which are random, and conform to the rules of science.
10.  10/17/2002, 02:13 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer Anecdotes are pieces of data collected in unscientific ways (non-random sampling being the chief method). As in people that one has met. Using parameters (or inferential statistics derived with valid methods) to predict samples has nothing to do with anecdotal evidence. Then why would you try and use such statistics to uphold a theory based on nothing but? ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
11.  10/17/2002, 02:15 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer You will only drown in water more than 6 feet deep. Who said that? Is that a KRamsauer-ism? That definitely wasn't part of the joke. By the way, I can't wait to tell Dad how his statistics joke, which he and his nerdy buddies at work giggle about, has been so bastardized such that someone is trying to use the joke to prove the opposite of what the point of the joke is.
12.  10/17/2002, 02:15 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer You are saying I'm using evidence collected in every-day life to predict the tendencies of the population and then use that to predict the tendencies of individuals. I'm saying that having already known the population parameters you can predict individual instances. We are talking about two seperate areas of the logic chain. Therein lies the misunderstanding. As soon as we realize I don't derive population parameters from non-random sampling and it has never been part of my argument, we'll be friends again. We were never enemies, and the point is that you don't _know_ the population parameters. ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
13.  10/17/2002, 02:16 PM Originally posted by K. Cannon I don't consider it a worst case scenerio. I consider it a **joke**, which you obviously didn't get. You see, the point of the joke is that the statistician FOOLISHLY INSISTED on believing that an AVERAGE is the same thing as the specific depth of the river. "More statisticians will live than will die" What does that mean? My statement was about ONE statistician--remember? The one who DIED because he thought an average was the same as reality? I got the joke, I just thought it was a poor way to discredit statistics, that's all. You're right that it was foolish to insist he would absolutely live. In my book he's not even a statistician because any competent mind would interpret the notion of average correctly (this recently deceased statistician probably expects to see one third of a kid when walking into an "average" household). As for my statement, analyzing the situation I determined at most, one third of all spots in a body of water would cause someone to drown. So selecting single spots and dumping statisticians in randomly will result in fewer than 50% dying. That's all. Of course your one statistician may drown, but odds are the next person to try (at random, at a random spot on the body of water) won't.
14.  10/17/2002, 02:17 PM Originally posted by Toby We were never enemies, and the point is that you don't _know_ the population parameters. Okay, that's true. I tried to lay out in a theoretical framework that once parameters are known predictions can be made. And being familiar with statistics yourself you know parameters can be derived from samples not a "census." We were never enemies? Don't open the package that's getting delivered tomorrow then. ;-)
15.  10/17/2002, 02:18 PM Originally posted by Toby As in people that one has met. Then why would you try and use such statistics to uphold a theory based on nothing but? I never claimed to be forming parameter estimates from my daily interactions. If I did, I'm sorry, and I ask you to point them out so I can address them.
16.  10/17/2002, 02:20 PM Originally posted by K. Cannon Who said that? Is that a KRamsauer-ism? That definitely wasn't part of the joke. I was using it as a lower limit of drowning depth to show that any given point of water is most likely not going to kill someone. It seemed like a reasonable estimate given the height of people and such. By the way, I can't wait to tell Dad how his statistics joke, which he and his nerdy buddies at work giggle about, has been so bastardized such that someone is trying to use the joke to prove the opposite of what the point of the joke is. What was it trying to prove? It sounds to me that it's trying to show that stupid people blindly following numbers can make big mistakes. I'm trying to show (using an extrapolation of the joke) that smart people following reason can reduce their error rate to one below what it would be if they didn't think and use reason.
17.  10/17/2002, 02:26 PM Originally posted by K. Cannon Why do you have man in quotes? I said it was my dad's favorite joke. I never said the statistician who drowned was a guy. I put it in quotes because it was a reference to what I had written earlier, and not a part of that sentence as a construct in and of itself. From statistics I've seen of graduate level math students, it seems a valid prediction to make that the statistician was a man. At least better than 50%.
18.  10/17/2002, 02:27 PM Man, I need a break. I'm going to go eat lunch. Isn't it amazing what misunderstandings can do? Sorry to TC for eating up all their bandwidth.
19.  10/17/2002, 02:31 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer When someone's country is under threat people tend to dislike that threat. That is a commonly accepted view of humanity. If you disagree, why is that? Because your premise is flawed. Not all Jews consider the current incarnation of Israel their country. Not all Jews consider there to be a threat. I doubt that even all Jews in _Israel_ consider there to be an eminent threat (given history and Santanaya's good track record). ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
20.  10/17/2002, 02:33 PM Originally posted by KRamsauer Not me. But there have been a plethora of polls, which are random, and conform to the rules of science. I generally don't put much stock in opinion polls or their scientific basis. If they actually published the survey and the methodology, I might, but they almost never do. ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 9 of 24 First ... 456789101112131419 ... Last