Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Harm Done By Religion


Doug1066

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Larry

Go easy on Will he is an apprentice cherry picker and not  a pro like you, give it some time he may surpass your own abilities one day.

Hey, I'm novice cherry-picker too, but I don't see anyone going easy on me? What kind of picking cotton is going on here, in this urban place?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just checking, as I kind of wondered in here by mistake, and now I lost my way. Is this "The harm done by religion" Thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Larry

Go easy on Will he is an apprentice cherry picker and not  a pro like you, give it some time he may surpass your own abilities one day.

Hahaha, wish I had two laugh 'likes' I could assign to that one.  I do love me some good light-hearted smartassedness and that was beautiful.

Capture.JPG.a5611dfa4876c6794a5d053af2fda95d.JPG

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone good with numbers calculated the probability for the existence of God? I would have imagined that before we would attempt to determine the harm done by religion, if any, or how much, we would need to establish if the object of religion, the belief in deities, whether one or many, does/due really exist. Because if a god/gods do not exist, the harm, if any, has been done needlessly. And to keep 8bits and LG on-topic, Zeno paradoxes included, mainly, the one on one and the many paradox.

Are we, or are we not all full of ourselves? It's really one of Zeno's paradoxes. See for yourselves, or should I say, see for ourselves?

Just a tiny piece of a very tall wall. From Plato's Parmenides. It's really a dialogue about God and gods.

Let me introduce some countrymen of mine, I said; they are lovers of philosophy, and have heard that Antiphon was intimate with a certain Pythodorus, a friend of Zeno, and remembers a conversation which took place between Socrates, Zeno, and Parmenides many years ago, Pythodorus having often recited it to him.

Quite true.

And could we hear it? I asked.

Nothing easier, he replied; when he was a youth he made a careful study of the piece; at present his thoughts run in another direction; like his grandfather Antiphon he is devoted to horses. But, if that is what you want, let us go and look for him; he dwells at Melita, which is quite near, and he has only just left us to go home.

Accordingly we went to look for him; he was at home, and in the act of giving a bridle to a smith to be fitted. When he had done with the smith, his brothers told him the purpose of our visit; and he saluted me as an acquaintance whom he remembered from my former visit, and we asked him to repeat the dialogue. At first he was not very willing, and complained of the trouble, but at length he consented. He told us that Pythodorus had described to him the appearance of Parmenides and Zeno; they came to Athens, as he said, at the great Panathenaea; the former was, at the time of his visit, about 65 years old, very white with age, but well favoured. Zeno was nearly 40 years of age, tall and fair to look upon; in the days of his youth he was reported to have been beloved by Parmenides. He said that they lodged with Pythodorus in the Ceramicus, outside the wall, whither Socrates, then a very young man, came to see them, and many others with him; they wanted to hear the writings of Zeno, which had been brought to Athens for the first time on the occasion of their visit. These Zeno himself read to them in the absence of Parmenides, and had very nearly finished when Pythodorus entered, and with him Parmenides and Aristoteles who was afterwards one of the Thirty, and heard the little that remained of the dialogue. Pythodorus had heard Zeno repeat them before.

When the recitation was completed, Socrates requested that the first thesis of the first argument might be read over again, and this having been done, he said: What is your meaning, Zeno? Do you maintain that if being is many, it must be both like and unlike, and that this is impossible, for neither can the like be unlike, nor the unlike like—is that your position?

Just so, said Zeno.

And if the unlike cannot be like, or the like unlike, then according to you, being could not be many; for this would involve an impossibility. In all that you say have you any other purpose except to disprove the being of the many? and is not each division of your treatise intended to furnish a separate proof of this, there being in all as many proofs of the not-being of the many as you have composed arguments? Is that your meaning, or have I misunderstood you?

No, said Zeno; you have correctly understood my general purpose.

I see, Parmenides, said Socrates, that Zeno would like to be not only one with you in friendship but your second self in his writings too; he puts what you say in another way, and would fain make believe that he is telling us something which is new. For you, in your poems, say The All is one, and of this you adduce excellent proofs; and he on the other hand says There is no many; and on behalf of this he offers overwhelming evidence. You affirm unity, he denies plurality. And so you deceive the world into believing that you are saying different things when really you are saying much the same. This is a strain of art beyond the reach of most of us.

Yes, Socrates, said Zeno. But although you are as keen as a Spartan hound in pursuing the track, you do not fully apprehend the true motive of the composition, which is not really such an artificial work as you imagine; for what you speak of was an accident; there was no pretence of a great purpose; nor any serious intention of deceiving the world. The truth is, that these writings of mine were meant to protect the arguments of Parmenides against those who make fun of him and seek to show the many ridiculous and contradictory results which they suppose to follow from the affirmation of the one. My answer is addressed to the partisans of the many, whose attack I return with interest by retorting upon them that their hypothesis of the being of many, if carried out, appears to be still more ridiculous than the hypothesis of the being of one. Zeal for my master led me to write the book in the days of my youth, but some one stole the copy; and therefore I had no choice whether it should be published or not; the motive, however, of writing, was not the ambition of an elder man, but the pugnacity of a young one. This you do not seem to see, Socrates; though in other respects, as I was saying, your notion is a very just one.

I understand, said Socrates, and quite accept your account. But tell me, Zeno, do you not further think that there is an idea of likeness in itself, and another idea of unlikeness, which is the opposite of likeness, and that in these two, you and I and all other things to which we apply the term many, participate—things which participate in likeness become in that degree and manner like; and so far as they participate in unlikeness become in that degree unlike, or both like and unlike in the degree in which they participate in both? And may not all things partake of both opposites, and be both like and unlike, by reason of this participation?—Where is the wonder? Now if a person could prove the absolute like to become unlike, or the absolute unlike to become like, that, in my opinion, would indeed be a wonder; but there is nothing extraordinary, Zeno, in showing that the things which only partake of likeness and unlikeness experience both. Nor, again, if a person were to show that all is one by partaking of one, and at the same time many by partaking of many, would that be very astonishing. But if he were to show me that the absolute one was many, or the absolute many one, I should be truly amazed. And so of all the rest: I should be surprised to hear that the natures or ideas themselves had these opposite qualities; but not if a person wanted to prove of me that I was many and also one. When he wanted to show that I was many he would say that I have a right and a left side, and a front and a back, and an upper and a lower half, for I cannot deny that I partake of multitude; when, on the other hand, he wants to prove that I am one, he will say, that we who are here assembled are seven, and that I am one and partake of the one. In both instances he proves his case. So again, if a person shows that such things as wood, stones, and the like, being many are also one, we admit that he shows the coexistence of the one and many, but he does not show that the many are one or the one many; he is uttering not a paradox but a truism. If however, as I just now suggested, some one were to abstract simple notions of like, unlike, one, many, rest, motion, and similar ideas, and then to show that these admit of admixture and separation in themselves, I should be very much astonished. This part of the argument appears to be treated by you, Zeno, in a very spirited manner; but, as I was saying, I should be far more amazed if any one found in the ideas themselves which are apprehended by reason, the same puzzle and entanglement which you have shown to exist in visible objects.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Hahaha, wish I had two laugh 'likes' I could assign to that one.  I do love me some good light-hearted smartassedness and that was beautiful.

Capture.JPG.a5611dfa4876c6794a5d053af2fda95d.JPG

What does a female want with a full beard? Full Bread I can understand, as women do a lot of baking around the house, or elsewhere. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

I have learned so much from you, @Liquid Gardens and @eight bits excellent job on explaining and providing examples boys. :wub:

Thanks, but I am honestly just as much of a learner as you. :) 

In many cases I approach a topic/point with very little knowledge and come away with having learned much more because I will find points that strike me as odd, and I don't always necessarily know why; it often just "seems kinda sus".

For example, in this thread... I actually had no idea that there were different "groups" of carcinogens such that it was labeled Group 1, 2A, etc... The fact that processed meat and tobacco are both classified in the same category of carcinogen is actually kind of terrifying.

As somebody who has been using the internet for more than 20 years, I am still in awe at the level of information available at our fingertips, should we know where to look.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the exception of some friends, this discussion has veered way under my head. Moving on.....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

Hey, I'm novice cherry-picker too, but I don't see anyone going easy on me? What kind of picking cotton is going on here, in this urban place?

We are all cherry pickers and no one has ever gone easy on us, either. :P

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Parent: I have a daughter, Suzy.

Well, I was getting to that.

In addition to dropping the piece of information about the equal probability of either child, you also made the girls distinguishable (assuming that the other child's name is not also Suzy).

My priority was to recover the reasoning of the original problem, and besides, there is no answer without a specification of the probability of who walks in first. So, let's finish with the problem as you first revised it, then if we reach agreement about that, then we can look at any further versions.

OK. Version 2. {bg, gb, gg}, all equally probable, 1/3, just as before.

You learn that one girl's name is Suzy. Recode:

{b & S, g & S} with probabilities 2/3 and 1/3 respectively

prob b & S and S enters first = 1/3 = 1/2 * 2/3 (other child is a boy)
prob g & S and S enters first = 1/6 (other child is a girl)

The ratio for Suzy's sibling's gender is 2:1, the same before and after Suzy entered.

So, the entry of Suzy if she and her sibling were equally likely to enter first, and Suzy enters after you have already learned that Suzy is one of the children, does indeed leave the starting 2/3 undisturbed. (In Godly terms, the other child, whether boy or girl, had a fair chance to reveal themselves and failed to do so, the same fair chance regardless of gender. Nothing about the sibling's gender was learned.)

Are we still together on this?

Edited by eight bits
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, eight bits said:

My priority was to recover the reasoning of the original problem,

Thanks, to be clear as I stated before I glossed right over and assumed that the probability of either child coming to the door was equal, and did not know until now that the specification of one as Suzy made any difference, so had no idea I had even changed the problem.

18 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Are we still together on this?

After reading it multiple times and bringing up another side-by-side window with your original explanation, yes by a thread.  Our difference here is:

prob g & S and S enters first = 1/6 (other child is girl)

whereas pre-Suzy:

gg then g enters first and and other child is a girl = 1/3

I understand that but whew, challenging to determine that's the correct way to think about it, or at least new to me.  I do remember and understand multiplying probabilities together, but I guess I'm not sure if there are qualifications/additional information that can be added to statements like this that, although involves a probability, is not relevant. I really should just make a spreadsheet, but offhand I don't know what if anything changes if we add 'one child rode his bike to meet me and the other took the bus, and which vehicle chosen was random and of equal probability', I think with just that it overall doesn't change anything, I think that gives us another probability to multiply but the overall percentage just 'collapses' back and stays the same.  I have no confidence about what happens if I say Suzy took the bus, doesn't seems like it would change anything, but I'm already having to jump as high as I can to see above the weeds I'm in.

So I think one of the clear takeaways here is if say you're randomly going to adopt two dogs out of an equal pool of genders and the first dog you adopt is a female, if you want your next randomly chosen dog to be a male you should name your first dog Suzy...

(jk, I know it doesn't work that way, just laughing at LG logic and 'intuition'...)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

We are all cherry pickers and no one has ever gone easy on us, either. :P

It's easy to be hard. Have you heard the term, "hard facts?" Opinions are like cherry-picking. But I agree fully, we all cherry-pick one time or another. We just need to know which are the ones ripe for the picking. Unripened fruit will quickly provoke sour stomach in those that may eat those cherries. I had a very wise uncle who lived on Cherry street, In Park Ridge, Il., and I learned how to pick the ripe ones under his guidance. 

We need good cherry-pickers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Larry

Go easy on Will he is an apprentice cherry picker and not  a pro like you . . ."

I believe in both Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) Scripture to make it clear. The Scripture teaches that idol worship is very gross to YHWH. So, I do not cherry-pick.

Edited by larryp
the details!
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larryp said:

I believe in both Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) Scripture to make it clear. I know that idol worship is very gross to YHWH. So, I do not cherry-pick.

Hi Larry

Butchering a religion for the bits you like is cherry picking which is well evidenced by your post history.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by butchering? I didn't write those words. Don't shoot the messenger.

"When you have entered into the land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the detestable practices of those nations. There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire . . ."

Deuteronomy 18: 9

 

Edited by larryp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, larryp said:

What do you mean by butchering? I didn't write those words. Don't shoot the messenger.

"When you have entered into the land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the detestable practices of those nations. There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire . . ."

Deuteronomy 18: 9

 

Hi Larry

Your interpretation of the bible and the bits you like that conform to your confirmation bias is cherry picking and or butchering the intended context of the whole of the bible.

Not saying your a bad guy 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Larry

Your interpretation of the bible and the bits you like that conform to your confirmation bias is cherry picking and or butchering the intended context of the whole of the bible.

Not saying your a bad guy 

What's there to interpret? What part did you not understand, jmcc8? You read it for yourself. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Edited by larryp
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, larryp said:

What's there to interpret? What part did you not understand, jmcc8? You read it for yourself. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Hi Larry 

What truth? Nope I don't feel hurt at all life isn't that painful actually rather enjoyable most days.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, eight bits said:

Maybe a heads up. The Wiki article on Simpson's Paradox is a mess, although maybe the history of the thing is a mess and the collective approach to editing fails to clear things up.

@Liquid Gardens's choice of example, the batting averages, illustrates the usual "basic" Simpson's paradox. It is simply a fact of algebra that

a/b > c/d and w/x > y/z does NOT imply (a + w)/(b + x) > (c + y)/(d + z)

The "psychology" portion of the article is floundering desperately to say that aggregation is not a monotonic relation, unlike addition.

a/b > c/d and w/x > y/z does imply (a/b) + (w/x) > (c/d) + (y/z)

Well, not all relationships are monotonic, and to produce reliable work, you have to learn which ones are and which ones aren't among the relationships you use. Aggregation is not monotonic. So watch out if you aren't aware of that.

The defining feature of a basic Simpson's paradox is that all of the subgroups being aggregated have something in common, but the aggregate has the opposite quality.

Thus, @Mr Walker's choice of example is a different problem. Hopefully, there is nothing paradoxical that a group average will combine some values higher than the group average and other values lower than the group average. And sure enough, Berkeley's overall positive male-versus-female rate difference arises from individual decision making units where some have positive rate differences and some have negative differences.

The Berkely problem is different. The "mechanism" generating the data includes an interaction between the variable of interest (applicant gender) and the decision-making uints (departments). In fact, it is the object of the study to discover whether decision making interacts with applicant gender. Obviously, aggregation loses information about the decision making units, and in this case, loses all the information about the decision makers.

Fine, so we don't aggregate. Now what? Bigger than hell there is an interaction between applicant gender and unit. The $64 question is why?. Are the departments choosing gender, or are the genders choosing departments? It turns out that the answer to that is found by examining not only the departments' acceptance rates but also the genders' application rates.

BTW, that the gendered selection of department can account for the pattern of acceptances does not imply the absence of gender bias in acceptances. There may be gendered reasons why men are so eagerly applying to the engineering department while women are eagerly applying to the English department, and the institution as a whole may be responsible for some of that.

The moral of the Berkeley story, it seems to me, is that even if we avoid "aggregating out" one of the variables we're trying to study, we're still uncertain about the mechanism generating our data. At a minimum, we needed to consider hypotheses other than the one of principal interest (the institution discriminates against women), and see whether our data set displays something favoring one of those alternatives (women discriminate among departments, and do so in a way that "explains away" the aggregate result).

It is very likely that in the real world of 1970's Berkeley that both gendered applicant choices and also gendered departmental choices contributed something to the observed situation. These data don't eliminate that, even when we don't make a stupid analytical mistake and are careful to consider alternative hypotheses. Gender does matter according to these data.

It is not the data analyst's fault that knowing only the inputs (applications by department and gender) and the outputs (acceptances by department and gender), we're still largely igonorant about  what's going on inside the black box.

I thought this was what the wiki article explained. 

(it wasnt MY choice of example. it came from the article )

as far as i can see all the "paradoxes"  only seem paradoxical because either they are comparing different cohorts OR the y are not accounting for  anomalies within those cohorts

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

If there is no causal link then there is only a correlation, so it can’t be proven that there is a causal relationship between red meat and cancer. Which is exactly why red meat is defined as “probably” being a cause of cancer, and is not a Group 1 carcinogen.

Smoking is also an unfair comparison because that is listed as a Group 1 carcinogen. As is processed meat.

Either way, I am done with this argument because it is a FACT that there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE that red meat is carcinogenic to humans, hence why it is in the group that it is. Your inability to see that is just going to cause more derailing, and I honestly don’t care enough about proving you wrong to continue. 

1 Insufficient evidence for what ?

For you to feel safe continuing to eat it ?

2 Correlation alone provides evidence of some link. 

With red meat there is more than this. There is also the known carcinogenic properties of red meat's chemicals,  and  those created  by the cooking process   

The only thing lacking is a complete understanding  of   irrefutable  cause and effect. This will come, but if  you  wait for it, to take action, many people will get sick and die 

3 That was my point about smoking 

In my parents time, doctors recommended it  to improve your breathing 

Then the correlation between smoking and cancer became clear and warnings began to be  issued. 

BUT tobacco companies and some smokers argued that, until  the specific cause and effect was  understood and proven,  no one could blame smoking for cancer 

It took much longer to establish the science  of how and why cigarettes cause cancer, and by then millions had died 

That is my point. we cant afford to wait for clinical causal links,   to begin warning peole of the dangers 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What is 'this'?  I didn't actually mention Simpson's paradox in my post you quoted, the only paradox mentioned is the difference between:

"There is a family with two children. You have been told this family has a daughter. What are the odds they also have a son, assuming the biological odds of having a male or female child are equal? (Answer: 2/3.)" 

and

"Granted the question is subtle. Consider: we are to be visited by the two kids just described, at least one of which is a girl. It's a matter of chance who arrives first. The first child enters--a girl. The second knocks. What are the odds it's a boy? Answer: 1 in 2. Paradoxical but true."

(I still don't get the reasoning on the second statement, I understand the first one but I don't know why that reasoning/information no longer applies in the second scenario.  Which is what I was talking about here, which was not Simpson's paradox but about how small changes in semantics can lead to quite different probabilities.)

I'm not even sure where the paradox is in the Berkeley gender bias example, it looks more like an explanation of the data results, but it doesn't note where the aggregate findings are in conflict with anything except individual groups which as @eight bits already noted are expected. 

According to wiki some further break down 'paradoxes' into logical and semantic paradoxes.  There do seem to be some 'real' paradoxes in logic/math but that's way above our paygrade to evaluate, and I don't know how many of those also have explanations/qualifications that 'explain' the paradox. The batting average paradox is just a result of algebra/math, but I think is still a bit surprising if one is not constantly working with averages and such.  To me the 'semantic' paradox is still intact with this, there is no objective answer to the question, 'who had a better batting average in the years 1995-1996, Jeter or Justice?'.  Can't really answer that question and not because they tied, it's that in this specific case because of the paradox the question is not specific enough, although it would be in comparisons between almost any other batters.  In the vast majority of comparisons I would guess with active batters, a batter with individual yearly averages that are above another batter's would also have a higher average for the aggregated years, thus leading to the incorrect expectation that this is always the case.  

The paradox (from my reading  of it)  doesn't work like the examples you gave 

The probability   of  a child s gender is simply mathematical probability.

Even if it doesn't make intuitive sense, it makes mathematical sense.  You (and me)  either have to have  enough theoretical maths knowledge to know this to be true, or you/me have to accept it on trust (as I do) 

Someone  like 8 bits can explain it in logical simple terms, but usually it is so counter intuitive that most non mathematicians want to argue about it 

eg 

 "They have 2 kids. 

For each kid there is a 1/2 chance of the child being a boy or a girl 

How can it possibly be that the chance of the second child being ......is 2/3?  it must also be 1/2"

Unless you/me understand both the maths and the factors which influence probability in this particular case  then you /me  just have to take an experts word  for it .

Unless of course it is a "trick question" where the semantics constructs an unseen factor which influences the answer to the specific question 

 

 

I did learn all this stuff at uni and passed the required exams on it,  but haven't had to use it for years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks, to be clear as I stated before I glossed right over and assumed that the probability of either child coming to the door was equal, and did not know until now that the specification of one as Suzy made any difference, so had no idea I had even changed the problem.

After reading it multiple times and bringing up another side-by-side window with your original explanation, yes by a thread.  Our difference here is:

prob g & S and S enters first = 1/6 (other child is girl)

whereas pre-Suzy:

gg then g enters first and and other child is a girl = 1/3

I understand that but whew, challenging to determine that's the correct way to think about it, or at least new to me.  I do remember and understand multiplying probabilities together, but I guess I'm not sure if there are qualifications/additional information that can be added to statements like this that, although involves a probability, is not relevant. I really should just make a spreadsheet, but offhand I don't know what if anything changes if we add 'one child rode his bike to meet me and the other took the bus, and which vehicle chosen was random and of equal probability', I think with just that it overall doesn't change anything, I think that gives us another probability to multiply but the overall percentage just 'collapses' back and stays the same.  I have no confidence about what happens if I say Suzy took the bus, doesn't seems like it would change anything, but I'm already having to jump as high as I can to see above the weeds I'm in.

So I think one of the clear takeaways here is if say you're randomly going to adopt two dogs out of an equal pool of genders and the first dog you adopt is a female, if you want your next randomly chosen dog to be a male you should name your first dog Suzy...

(jk, I know it doesn't work that way, just laughing at LG logic and 'intuition'...)

Thought it was "A boy named  Sue "  :) 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=a+boy+named+sue+lyrics&rlz=1C1KAFA_enAU554AU554&oq=a+boy+called+sue+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i10l2j46i10j0i10j46i10l2j0i10j46i10i175i199j0i10.6192j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Well, my daddy left home when I was three
Didn't leave very much to my mom and me
Except this old guitar and an empty bottle of booze
Now, I don't blame him 'cause he run and hid
But the meanest thing that my daddy ever did
Was before he left, he went and named me Sue

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Begging @Doug1066's indulgence for one more post on probability puzzles (maybe on-topic because the thread attracts posts calling for probabilisitc reasoning about published studies of variable quality in order to evaluate their relevance to religious harm or benefit):

If you find these problems difficult, then you are not alone. They are variations on a puzzle which is well-known as one where some professionals get the wrong answer (wrong in the sense that their spontaneous answer conflicts with the theory they profess). This one is usually called The Monty Hall Problem, named after an American television game show host.

At the end of each show, a lucky contestant gets to pick door number 1, door number 2 or else door number 3. Behind one of them, chosen at random with equal probabilities, is a nice grand prize. Behind each of the other two are much less desirable prizes.

The contestant picks a door. Monty Hall then picks another door that doesn't hide the grand prize. There is always at least one door left that doesn't, and when there are two (= the contestant has picked the right door), Monty chooses one of them at random with equal probability.

The contestant is then given the opportunity to pick the remaining door (the one that neither they nor Monty chose), or else staying with their original pick. Does picking the remaining door give a higher probability of gaining the grand prize than staying with the original pick?

(Answer: Yes, change wins 2/3 times, don't change wins 1/3 times - so change). I think this one tricks some professionals because how Monty chooses in the two-door case is irrelevant. Professionals who don't know the problem already maybe see that and knowing that it's some kind of "trick question," they think they've solved the problem when they "see through" the irrelevant piece of information. They stop analyzing before noticing that 2 out of 3 times Monty is giving away the right answer, which is to pick the remaining door.

-

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

as far as i can see all the "paradoxes"  only seem paradoxical because either they are comparing different cohorts OR the y are not accounting for  anomalies within those cohorts

Yes, we have discussed that the Wiki article has combined a number of data aggregation cautionary tales under the rubric of Simpson's Paradox.

LG raised a good question, I think, about "what really is a paradox?" Maybe a discussion will break out in the philosophy and psychology forum about that. Here and now, I think we have tried Doug's patience enough.

Edited by eight bits
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

They have 2 kids. 

For each kid there is a 1/2 chance of the child being a boy or a girl 

How can it possibly be that the chance of the second child being ......is 2/3?  it must also be 1/2"

Unless you/me understand both the maths and the factors which influence probability in this particular case  then you /me  just have to take an experts word  for it .

That's the reason I brought it up, I do understand why, given the setup which is important to pay attention to the details of, the odds of the second child being a boy is 2/3, that part is pretty straightforward (the answer is laid out in my initial link when I mentioned this).  I just think these things are interesting because I sure think I'm being logical in my analysis of some of these scenarios when I arrive at my wrong answer.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

This one is usually called The Monty Hall Problem

Actually it was an article about the Monty Hall problem that had the two different child-gender scenarios that stumped me.  That you should always switch to Monty's door becomes more obvious to me when we instead say Monty has a million doors and opens up 999,998 of them to show none of them had prizes.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, larryp said:

What's there to interpret? What part did you not understand, jmcc8? You read it for yourself. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Yea Larry, I posted this meme before, but you never did comment on these wild bible characters.....how did they exist, where's the proof, where are their fossils? Except one of course.......

Bible- One of these Things is not in....jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.