tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4618293281792909296..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Francis Bacon on root of superstitionStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38930768439684226542010-01-16T22:46:54.285+00:002010-01-16T22:46:54.285+00:00'facts are the idlest of superstitions''facts are the idlest of superstitions'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69861855196169189282010-01-14T00:45:31.840+00:002010-01-14T00:45:31.840+00:00I'm realizing that I put 365 over 5 and 356 ov...I'm realizing that I put 365 over 5 and 356 over 1. Sorry for the confusion on that one.... Nonetheless, the math should be correctAndrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26217450235647170592010-01-13T18:23:05.901+00:002010-01-13T18:23:05.901+00:00Now, if you know 10 people who fit this bill, you ...Now, if you know 10 people who fit this bill, you follow the addative law of probability (two events are not mutually exclusive).<br /><br />i.e. if you know 10 people whom the probability of this event happening to them is .094%, what is the probability of this happening to at leat one of them at any given moment. <br /><br />For this you do the following. <br />You sum the probabilities, .095+.095+.095.... (or .095% * 10) and subtract from that the probability of them happening together, which is, .095*.095*.095.....<br /><br />.095% * 10 = .95%<br />.095*.095*.095..... = essentially 0<br /><br />You are essentially looking at this happening once every 105 days, or 3 times a year within the 10 people you know.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-48902413223716496362010-01-13T18:09:35.123+00:002010-01-13T18:09:35.123+00:00Stephen,
this follows the multiplicative law of p...Stephen, <br />this follows the multiplicative law of probability, i.e. we want to know the pobablity of two independent events, taking place at the same time is. <br /><br />if you have one friend that you think about 5 times a year (365/5) that means the probablity of thinking about that person is 1.37%.<br /><br />If that particular friend calls you once per year (365/1), the probability of that person calling you is .27%.<br /><br />The probablity of those two events taking place at the same time is 1.37% * .27%, which equals .00375%, or once every 26645 days. <br /><br />For 5 people, you simply multiply 1.37% by 5 to get 6.85%, and 5 by .27% to get 1.37%. From there the odds of thinking about one of these 5 friends and them calling is .094%, or once every 1065 days.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22807279942426725762010-01-13T15:27:11.960+00:002010-01-13T15:27:11.960+00:00The thought of selective bias is not flawed. I bel...The thought of selective bias is not flawed. I beleive it exists. Every human thought is 100% subjective, created by our personal frame of reference and colored by our personal experiences,prejudices,and wishes.Bacon and Newton and other thinking men back then were seeking an understanding of their worlds, a scientific search for rational explanation. The search could go anywhere and everywhere. At that time superstition must have been prevelant. They looked at superstition as a possible truth, but of course cannot disprove it exists. Who can say for sure?Steven Lawhttp://mysteriouspinebarrens.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16516883269113589122010-01-12T20:39:29.134+00:002010-01-12T20:39:29.134+00:00oh sod it. there is a flaw. the people whom those ...oh sod it. there is a flaw. the people whom those you know well know well will include no doubt, a significant number of those you know well. So 10 is too high.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31415608029839993792010-01-12T20:38:54.077+00:002010-01-12T20:38:54.077+00:00Does not perception override fact? Is not selectio...Does not perception override fact? Is not selection bias the same as that which one wishes? Selective memory chooses the reality one wishes was so. Don't we all rationalize our own reality? Don't we disregard the distasteful and yearn to believe the beautiful? To stare at the grotesque is to tremble at the possibility it exists within ourselves, a thought which unnerves us.Steven Lawhttp://mysteriouspinebarrens.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78062628253043674842010-01-12T20:33:36.561+00:002010-01-12T20:33:36.561+00:00"And they entail that, on average, within rou...<i>"And they entail that, on average, within roughly any 7 and a bit year period, one such coincidence will happen to one person you know very well, and to ten of the people whom you know very well know very well."</i><br /><br />Oh, sorry, I now see where you were going with the "friends you know very well" - I misunderstood you.<br /><br />Running the numbers really does blow your intuition out the water, doesn't it? In reality, the net is made even wider by the looseness with which we judge such 'hits'. I'd bet it doesn't have to be the same day, does it? Dreaming of them the night before would probably be included, as would receiving an email <i>about</i><br />them, rather than from them, etc. All this would make such coincidences almost highly probable!<br /><br />(I think you need to delete the last phrase though?)jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353716090668341520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-81949553721803391222010-01-12T20:03:24.726+00:002010-01-12T20:03:24.726+00:00There's another kind of superstition which is ...There's another kind of superstition which is based on attributing magical powers to amulets, through the LACK of contrary evidence. For example, "I've always carried the picture of Virgin Mary with me, and nothing bad has happened to me, therefore it has special power." <br /><br />When I formulate it like this, it seems absurd, but this is just a rephrasal of the classic induction mechanism employed by science. "All ever performed experiments have shown this result, therefore this result is scientifically valid."<br /><br />David Hume was first to point out this logical fallacy but scientists have not listened. To this day they are talking about "laws of nature" and "physical constants" even though technically this is just a form of superstition that the future will be like the past.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56392307346201385562010-01-12T19:56:52.714+00:002010-01-12T19:56:52.714+00:00In my opinion, to pray is simply directing the Wil...In my opinion, to pray is simply directing the Will to an end. I think John got better because he willed himself so. If you give up on yourself you truly have no place left to go. People who succumb to illness have given up the struggle. Medical history has numerous "miraculous" recoveries that can not be physically explained. They can only be attributed to triumphs of the will.Steven Lawhttp://mysteriouspinebarrens.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49355014891691092392010-01-12T19:20:41.410+00:002010-01-12T19:20:41.410+00:00I was in a motorcycle wreck and sustained a Grade ...I was in a motorcycle wreck and sustained a Grade 3 Open Fracture with complete dislocation of my ankle 10 yrs. ago. My surgeon told me one patient in ten thousand with this injury walks again. I am that one. Refuse to lose was and is my mantra. Salvation, as does Damnation, lies within.Steven Lawhttp://historycomesalive.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33837657877193899742010-01-12T17:32:49.425+00:002010-01-12T17:32:49.425+00:00Jeremy - I have fixed it up a bit. The maths was d...Jeremy - I have fixed it up a bit. The maths was done v quick on back of an envelope (literally). I THINK this is right now.<br /><br />It doesn't matter how often I think of or hear from friends I know quite well, does it?<br /><br />I will cut "selection bias" as it is not explained. It is a variety of, depending how you define "selection bias".Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44697301327014744282010-01-12T16:32:36.710+00:002010-01-12T16:32:36.710+00:00Also, I'm not a stastician, but wouldn't w...Also, I'm not a stastician, but wouldn't what Bacon was talking about be more an example of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_bias" rel="nofollow">"recall bias"</a> (and/or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias" rel="nofollow">"confirmation bias"</a>) than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias" rel="nofollow">"selection bias"</a>?jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353716090668341520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85731982849769898312010-01-12T16:24:02.636+00:002010-01-12T16:24:02.636+00:00My impression:
I'm not sure the math's is...My impression:<br /><br />I'm not sure the math's is right for the rare friends, and I don't think we have enough information for the people we know quite well.<br /><br />By my reckoning, the <b>average</b> time you'll wait for the coincidence of (a) thinking about someone and (b) hearing from them the same day, is given by the formula:<br /><br />(Likelihood of thinking about them on any particular day) x (Likelihood of hearing from them on any particular day)<br /><br />So for one "rare" friend this would be (5/365) x (1/[3*365]).<br /><br />This means that you would achieve this coincidence, on average, once every 219 years! Of course if you have five such friends, you would divide this waiting time by 5 to get to the average waiting time for this coincidence to occur with ANY of them (=43.8 years).<br /><br />For the second instance, the friends you know quite well, I don't think you've given us the value for how often you'll (a) think of them or (b) hear from them.<br /><br />If you use the SAME ratios (which would be odd, since you'd expect the ratios to be much higher for the latter cases), then one such coincidence would occur every 3.65 years, by my calculations.<br /><br />(I think?)jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353716090668341520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-8828166694459050422010-01-12T15:47:43.064+00:002010-01-12T15:47:43.064+00:00btw
and to 55 of the people you know quite well ...btw <br /><br />and to 55 of the people you know <i>quite well know quite well</i>.Staffordshire manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05572121503308389236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25053671180573102422010-01-12T15:24:25.060+00:002010-01-12T15:24:25.060+00:00I'm still waiting for a car accident victim to...I'm still waiting for a car accident victim to grow a new legStaffordshire manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05572121503308389236noreply@blogger.com