Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Thoroughly depressing

A virtual pub for off topic, light hearted pub related banter and discussion. No trainers
tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202172

Postby tjh290633 » February 18th, 2019, 6:32 pm

sunnyjoe wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:You guys are too pessimistic. The Earth is a great self regulating system and has been for a good few million years now. The Sun has a far bigger influence than anything else. The trouble with trying to regulate one element is that you disturb the equilibrium. You make matters worse instead of better.

Do you remember the celebrated J-curve effect? It was a load of cobblers. Al Gore was sucked in by a load of charlatans, and all those striking schoolgirls have been brainwashed by it. No original thought, just a parroting of the same old clichés. They should have been doing some original research instead of relying on misleading propoganda.

TJH


If you like data and research you can have a play with this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/examples

I have done my own research, thank you very much.

TJH

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202173

Postby XFool » February 18th, 2019, 6:39 pm

Alaric wrote:Is the "average" temperature of the Earth even constant on a day by day basis? So when there's a heat wave in Australia, does this imply Arctic weather in the Northern Hemisphere to compensate?

Nope. Anymore than if I throw four heads in a row with a fair(?) coin it means the next four throws MUST all be tails.

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5244
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3244 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202175

Postby didds » February 18th, 2019, 6:43 pm

XFool wrote:
Alaric wrote:Is the "average" temperature of the Earth even constant on a day by day basis? So when there's a heat wave in Australia, does this imply Arctic weather in the Northern Hemisphere to compensate?

Nope. Anymore than if I throw four heads in a row with a fair(?) coin it means the next four throws MUST all be tails.



A decade ago my wife had a college maths tutor that taught her class that if you rolled a dice four times and it came up "6", then the next roll must be also be "6" due to historic precedent. (no mention of dice NOT being a fair one!)

I put her right.

Didds B.Sc (Hons) Computer Science and _Statistics_.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202176

Postby XFool » February 18th, 2019, 6:47 pm

tjh290633 wrote:You guys are too pessimistic. The Earth is a great self regulating system and has been for a good few million years now.

OK. But, assuming it is, "self regulating" for what? "Self regulating" for the convenience of just one species: Homo Sapiens? How convenient! ;)

tjh290633 wrote:The Sun has a far bigger influence than anything else.

Who knew? :lol:
And what is the relevance of this stunning insight?

tjh290633 wrote:The trouble with trying to regulate one element is that you disturb the equilibrium. You make matters worse instead of better.

OK. But we are currently engaged in disturbing the "equilibrium" of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. So...

tjh290633 wrote:Do you remember the celebrated J-curve effect? It was a load of cobblers. Al Gore was sucked in by a load of charlatans, and all those striking schoolgirls have been brainwashed by it. No original thought, just a parroting of the same old clichés. They should have been doing some original research instead of relying on misleading propoganda.

Ah. It's a conspiracy? Nuff said... ;)

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202177

Postby XFool » February 18th, 2019, 6:52 pm

didds wrote:
XFool wrote:
Alaric wrote:Is the "average" temperature of the Earth even constant on a day by day basis? So when there's a heat wave in Australia, does this imply Arctic weather in the Northern Hemisphere to compensate?

Nope. Anymore than if I throw four heads in a row with a fair(?) coin it means the next four throws MUST all be tails.

A decade ago my wife had a college maths tutor that taught her class that if you rolled a dice four times and it came up "6", then the next roll must be also be "6" due to historic precedent. (no mention of dice NOT being a fair one!)

I put her right.

Didds B.Sc (Hons) Computer Science and _Statistics_.

Well, at some level I would consider her correct! But perhaps four times would not really be adequate for drawing that conclusion.
Q. How many throws would it take to convince you?

Perhaps she was trying to make a philosophical point like this. Indeed, this is what led me to introduce the question mark in parenthesis in my post about a "fair(?) coin"

XFool ('O' level in Metalwork)

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5244
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3244 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202178

Postby didds » February 18th, 2019, 6:57 pm

I was bring kind XFool. The entire premise was a totally fair dice. There was no nuance intended. The tutor just didn't understand the concepts.

I refuse to believe that a totally fair dice that has X consecutive sixes MUST be a six on the X+1 roll. Its still a 1/6 chance.

didds

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10690
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202182

Postby UncleEbenezer » February 18th, 2019, 7:57 pm

XFool wrote:Well, at some level I would consider her correct! But perhaps four times would not really be adequate for drawing that conclusion.
Q. How many throws would it take to convince you?

None.

You could pose a hypothesis that it is not a fair die, and then test it statistically. But you need to test your hypothesis using new data, not past data that led you to formulate the hypothesis in the first place.

Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern throw a coin, and get Heads 92 consecutive times. Is it a fair coin? The chances of that happening with a fair coin are one in 4951760157141521099596496896 (about five million million million million). But if you toss a fair coin an infinite number of times, the chance of 92 consecutive heads happening at some point is 1.0, and the chance of it never happening is zero. This is the principle that's sometimes referred to in terms of infinite monkeys.

The practical effect is that you can say it looks as if it's most unlikely to be a fair coin. But to test that statistically you have to discard the 92 tosses you already know, and start again with a carefully-designed experiment.

With a complex topic like climate change, there's a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation. Not all those who get funded have a clue what they're doing, and journalists who report them talk nonsense more often than not. Result: lots of ammunition for Denialists, who see bogosity and extrapolate from that to claim it's all tainted. The principle that one rotten apple spoils the barrel.

(I'm sure didds and other Fools with a bit of maths and/or stats in our background understand this).

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202186

Postby XFool » February 18th, 2019, 8:22 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:
XFool wrote:Well, at some level I would consider her correct! But perhaps four times would not really be adequate for drawing that conclusion.
Q. How many throws would it take to convince you?

None.

Why? "None" in the sense that no number would convince you it was unfair? Or none in that you accept it was defined as fair?

UncleEbenezer wrote:You could pose a hypothesis that it is not a fair die, and then test it statistically. But you need to test your hypothesis using new data, not past data that led you to formulate the hypothesis in the first place.

Not sure I understand - you could form the hypothesis with NO past data. Possibly raising the question of why you would consider it not a fair die etc. But then, starting from scratch, even if you could see no reason for it not being fair, you could just be setting out to test if it really IS fair.

UncleEbenezer wrote:Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern throw a coin, and get Heads 92 consecutive times.

I wasn't counting when I saw it! OTOH, perhaps the number was mentioned in the script, it was a long time ago.

UncleEbenezer wrote:Is it a fair coin? The chances of that happening with a fair coin are one in 4951760157141521099596496896 (about five million million million million). But if you toss a fair coin an infinite number of times, the chance of 92 consecutive heads happening at some point is 1.0, and the chance of it never happening is zero. This is the principle that's sometimes referred to in terms of infinite monkeys.

But you can't toss a coin an infinite number of times... Even in principle, only the number of times a coin could have been tossed (thermodynamic effects?) since the start of the universe. (The difference between mathematicians & philosophers and physicists & applied engineering?)

UncleEbenezer wrote:The practical effect is that you can say it looks as if it's most unlikely to be a fair coin. But to test that statistically you have to discard the 92 tosses you already know, and start again with a carefully-designed experiment.

You mean you have to account for its characteristics changing over time?

Perhaps, outside philosophy, it's best to simply thoroughly examine the device and reasonably conclude it has no current inherent bias and is not plausibly likely to develop any over time. Then to monitor its output over time to see if there is any detectable bias. Good enough for the Premium Bonds. Well, apart from the more paranoid holders!

UncleEbenezer wrote:With a complex topic like climate change, there's a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation. Not all those who get funded have a clue what they're doing, and journalists who report them talk nonsense more often than not. Result: lots of ammunition for Denialists, who see bogosity and extrapolate from that to claim it's all tainted. The principle that one rotten apple spoils the barrel.

(I'm sure didds and other Fools with a bit of maths and/or stats in our background understand this).

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202190

Postby XFool » February 18th, 2019, 8:35 pm

Well, hoping to cheer you up:

One for the record. Somebody I know is a climate change 'sceptic'(!). A recent argument was: In the 19th C, before the arrival of fossil fuelled motor vehicles (but what about coal?) transport utilised horses. So all those hard working horses were exhaling lots of CO2 (true enough) and yet global warming wasn't an issue. Why not?

:lol:

One can't help wondering how many other 'sceptics' come to their own conclusions based on such faulty reasoning and understanding!

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202191

Postby scotia » February 18th, 2019, 8:40 pm

Snorvey wrote:Cheezus wept. Now I really am depressed.

Now there's the difference between a pessimist and an optimist.
The past few responses have had me hooting with mirth!

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202205

Postby tjh290633 » February 18th, 2019, 11:05 pm

XFool wrote:Ah. It's a conspiracy? Nuff said... ;)

Thast just about sums you up.

TJH

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10690
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202207

Postby UncleEbenezer » February 18th, 2019, 11:47 pm

XFool wrote:
UncleEbenezer wrote:You could pose a hypothesis that it is not a fair die, and then test it statistically. But you need to test your hypothesis using new data, not past data that led you to formulate the hypothesis in the first place.

Not sure I understand - you could form the hypothesis with NO past data.

Indeed.
Possibly raising the question of why you would consider it not a fair die etc. But then, starting from scratch, even if you could see no reason for it not being fair, you could just be setting out to test if it really IS fair.

But you weren't.

My mother once told a story against her teenage self. She had started to do what teenage girls do, and pay attention to her appearance. At some point she locked herself in the bathroom - something that noone did in the house.

Her parents pressed her on what she was up to, and she admitted, she had been scrubbing up. With [brand] soap. She had been taken in by their advertising "two out of three great film stars use [brand] soap". Whereupon her father laughed heartily and explained: "they ask 50 film stars, and find two use [brand] soap. Discard 47, and two of the remaining three use it."

That's effectively what you're doing if you formulate a hypothesis based on an observation, and then use that same observation data to test the hypothesis.
UncleEbenezer wrote:Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern throw a coin, and get Heads 92 consecutive times.

I wasn't counting when I saw it! OTOH, perhaps the number was mentioned in the script, it was a long time ago.

I was going to say "about 80", which would've made the same story. Then I looked it up and found wikipedia says 92.

But you can't toss a coin an infinite number of times... Even in principle, only the number of times a coin could have been tossed (thermodynamic effects?) since the start of the universe. (The difference between mathematicians & philosophers and physicists & applied engineering?)

The coin toss is a metaphor. Like Schrödinger's cat. Or the fat man on the bridge.

Or perhaps like Adams's Infinite Improbability Drive, once it's been through Dodgson's looking glass.
You mean you have to account for its characteristics changing over time?

Nope. See above. That would be a whole nother hypothesis, and falls outside the scope of anything we've been considering.

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202209

Postby vrdiver » February 19th, 2019, 12:28 am

Just as a practical point, if you have a dice that keeps rolling sixes, your best chance of winning the next bet is to bet on another six.

Occam's razor would suggest that the dice is not fair, rather than you being in an exceptionally rare sequence of throws.

Perhaps the professor was trying to make some such similar point, but failed to get it across to his class?

VRD

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202348

Postby vrdiver » February 19th, 2019, 2:43 pm

Snorvey wrote:Stop. please stop.

and in a galaxy, far, far away, Snorvey uttered the word "stop" for the millionth time. What were the chances of that... ?
:lol:

VRD

kiloran
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4092
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:24 am
Has thanked: 3234 times
Been thanked: 2827 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202364

Postby kiloran » February 19th, 2019, 3:26 pm

vrdiver wrote:
Snorvey wrote:Stop. please stop.

and in a galaxy, far, far away, Snorvey uttered the word "stop" for the millionth time. What were the chances of that... ?
:lol:

VRD

And if the theory about there being an infinite number of parallel universes is correct, there will be another identical Snorvey somewhere saying "Don't stop. Please don't stop"

--kiloran

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1074 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202421

Postby zico » February 19th, 2019, 8:15 pm

As we've veered slightly from global extinction onto probability theory, here are Damon Runyon's wise words of probability.

One of these days in your travels, you are going to come across a guy with a nice brand new deck of cards, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not take this bet, for if you do, as sure as you are standing there, you are going to end up with an ear full of cider.'

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202426

Postby XFool » February 19th, 2019, 8:33 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:
XFool wrote:
UncleEbenezer wrote:You could pose a hypothesis that it is not a fair die, and then test it statistically. But you need to test your hypothesis using new data, not past data that led you to formulate the hypothesis in the first place.

Not sure I understand - you could form the hypothesis with NO past data.

Indeed.
Possibly raising the question of why you would consider it not a fair die etc. But then, starting from scratch, even if you could see no reason for it not being fair, you could just be setting out to test if it really IS fair.

But you weren't.

Weren't what? I wasn't doing any particular thing AFAIK.

UncleEbenezer wrote:My mother once told a story against her teenage self. She had started to do what teenage girls do, and pay attention to her appearance. At some point she locked herself in the bathroom - something that noone did in the house.

Her parents pressed her on what she was up to, and she admitted, she had been scrubbing up. With [brand] soap. She had been taken in by their advertising "two out of three great film stars use [brand] soap". Whereupon her father laughed heartily and explained: "they ask 50 film stars, and find two use [brand] soap. Discard 47, and two of the remaining three use it."

That's effectively what you're doing if you formulate a hypothesis based on an observation, and then use that same observation data to test the hypothesis.

But, as in my initial quote: You can formulate any hypothesis you want without looking at any prior data. That is the starting hypothesis. Whether it is reasonable or not is another matter.

But you can't toss a coin an infinite number of times... Even in principle, only the number of times a coin could have been tossed (thermodynamic effects?) since the start of the universe. (The difference between mathematicians & philosophers and physicists & applied engineering?)

UncleEbenezer wrote:The coin toss is a metaphor. Like Schrödinger's cat. Or the fat man on the bridge.

I understood that - I was making a point about the difference between looking at it from a philosophical pov vs a physical or practical pov.


P.S. Some of the wording in my original post was wrong or not sufficiently clear, I was beaten by the editing time-out.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202429

Postby XFool » February 19th, 2019, 8:35 pm

vrdiver wrote:Just as a practical point, if you have a dice that keeps rolling sixes, your best chance of winning the next bet is to bet on another six.

Occam's razor would suggest that the dice is not fair, rather than you being in an exceptionally rare sequence of throws.

Perhaps the professor was trying to make some such similar point, but failed to get it across to his class?

VRD

That was my suggestion too. Apparently not, though.

I feel I ought to stop now, before this thread risks becomes infinitely long. ;)

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2939
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 793 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202444

Postby melonfool » February 19th, 2019, 9:52 pm

Snorvey wrote:You know that Tibetan Monk dude that set fire to himself in protest? I know how he feels.

He too must have had a forum thread hijacked by claptrap.


Do you know - I had actually never heard of that. Until a book I read recently featured it as a catalyst in the storyline, then I looked it up. About two days later I saw it referred to on a TV show (with the footage) and now this and I honestly swear I had never heard of it until I read that book!

Mel

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Thoroughly depressing

#202448

Postby XFool » February 19th, 2019, 10:09 pm

Snorvey wrote:You know that Tibetan Monk dude that set fire to himself in protest? I know how he feels.

He too must have had a forum thread hijacked by claptrap.

If all you want is to go on feeling depressed, don't let us stop you.


Return to “Beerpig's Snug”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests