Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 4:08 AM, James A. Donald wrote: > > James A. Donald wrote: > >> You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal > >> proving that the journals are not genuinely peer > >> reviewed? > > Edward K. Ream wrote: > > No. I want an article appearing in a peer reviewed jou

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

James A. Donald wrote: >> You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal >> proving that the journals are not genuinely peer >> reviewed? Edward K. Ream wrote: > No. I want an article appearing in a peer reviewed journal indicating that > the threat of global warming is significantly ove

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 10, 8:32 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > If you have some technical reason for believe this very recent article > is false or misleading in some way, then you have the right to raise > objections to the editors of Science.   But unless you are technically > qualified to raise those objectio

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 10, 7:39 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > I do not intend to waste any more time on this discussion.  Continue it > without citing a peer-reviewed article and you will be banned immediately. Here is a recent article: Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling Science 4 September 200

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > > Edward K. Ream wrote: > > Your language gives you away. There is nothing > > "fraudulent" about attempting to reconstruct past > > climate data. > > It is entirely fraudulent to claim to have reconstructed > past climate data when one

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Edward K. Ream wrote: > Your language gives you away. There is nothing > "fraudulent" about attempting to reconstruct past > climate data. It is entirely fraudulent to claim to have reconstructed past climate data when ones results depend entirely on a group of ten trees, and to refrain for n

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 9, 9:14 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > > You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal > > proving that the journals are not genuinely peer > > reviewed? > > No.  I want an article appearing in a peer reviewed journal indicating that > the threat of global warming is significantly

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 6:16 AM, derwisch < johannes.hues...@med.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote: > > Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of > > hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science > > must compensate for our human failings. > > I don't think there's a

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:59 AM, James A. Donald wrote: > > You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal > proving that the journals are not genuinely peer > reviewed? > No. I want an article appearing in a peer reviewed journal indicating that the threat of global warming is significan

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:46 AM, James A. Donald wrote: > > James A. Donald >>> This works in those fields where there is a lot of private funding, but >>> in fields that are politically sensitive, and wholly government funded, >>> we unsurprisingly get politics rather than science. > > Kent Tenne

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 8, 4:28 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:15 AM, derwisch < > > Science is full of schools > > > which rather resemble competing tribes than people presenting > > contradicting facts, and agreeing to a common mindset might rather > > accelerate than impede a scientif

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Edward K. Ream wrote: > I am asking for reliable data, from peer-reviewed > articles. You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal proving that the journals are not genuinely peer reviewed? You are, however, happy to rely on assertions by peer reviewed journals that they are in fact p

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Edward K. Ream wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, James A. Donald wrote: > James A. Donald wrote: >> Unsupported and unexplained politically correct pseudo >> science appears all the time in "Science" and "Nature" Edward K. Ream wrote: > If you want me to believe it, you must cite a repu

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

James A. Donald >> This works in those fields where there is a lot of private funding, but >> in fields that are politically sensitive, and wholly government funded, >> we unsurprisingly get politics rather than science. Kent Tenney wrote: > Do you think oil and coal companies have political powe

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 8, 3:29 pm, "James A. Donald" wrote: > Here is the tale of his correspondence with the journal "Science" I am asking for reliable data, from peer-reviewed articles. Your guy is free to make as many wild accusations as he likes, as he is responsible to no one. Submit a reference to an a

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:31 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > > Edward K. Ream wrote: >> There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to >> mislead themselves or others.  If there were real data contradicting global >> warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by uncovering >> th

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Edward K. Ream wrote: > My wish is that we, individually and collectively, become connoisseurs > of evidence. And especially evidence that *disconfirms* our own > views. Your view is that Global Warming "Science" is science Well then, you should go and look at the evidence that disconfirms that

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Edward K. Ream wrote: > There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to > mislead themselves or others. If there were real data contradicting global > warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by uncovering > them. This works in those fields where there is a lot of private

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Matt Wilkie wrote: > > > Of course I am. Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of > > hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science > > must compensate for our human failings. > > A great audio series which involves this t

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

> Of course I am.  Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of > hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science > must compensate for our human failings. A great audio series which involves this theme is "How To Think About Science", http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/fe

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:15 AM, derwisch < johannes.hues...@med.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote: > > On Oct 7, 3:35 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > > > One of the most disheartening things about such "debates" is that many > > people fail to realize that science as a social enterprise has no > specific >

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, James A. Donald wrote: > > James A. Donald wrote: > > > Genuine science is replicable. And "replicable" > > > does not mean two priests recite the same doctrine, > > > it means they explain what they did in such a > > > fashion that anyone else could do it al

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 7, 3:35 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > > > > Imo, it is impossible to read any of the following and go away with the > > conclusion that evolutionary theory is anything but plain fact: > > One of the most disheartening things abou

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

James A. Donald wrote: > > Genuine science is replicable. And "replicable" > > does not mean two priests recite the same doctrine, > > it means they explain what they did in such a > > fashion that anyone else could do it also. > > > > If they refuse to explain, they are not scientists, >

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 7, 9:04 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > > And another.  We're on his case like white on rice: > > http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9gccy/did_glenn_beck_murder... And another. Glenn Beck the scientist http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909020033 EKR --~--~-~--~~

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 7, 8:56 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > This whole affair has the ring of a bad joke.  So in the spirit of the > jokester, here are two links: > > Glen Beck tries to kill parody web > site:http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/beck_tries_to_kill_parody_... > > and the actual parody

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 7, 7:42 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > The article you cite appears in a political journal. We see articles like > "why people like Palin".  If you want to be taken seriously, cite articles > in peer-reviewed scientific journals. > > For example, a search for the phrase "global warming"

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, "James A. Donald" wrote: > > > For a relatively easy to understand summary of the latest fraud to be > exposed, see > > .> > > one of many such

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, "James A. Donald" wrote: > For a relatively easy to understand summary of the latest fraud to be > exposed, see > > one of many such discoveries of junk science.' Your language gives you away. There

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 7, 3:06 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > > > Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. > > Here is another view: > > http://dougcarmichael.com/mahb/2009_solomonirreversible.pdf Here is the entire abstract: QQQ The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not o

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 7, 2:48 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, "James A. Donald" wrote: > > > Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. Here is another view: http://dougcarmichael.com/mahb/2009_solomonirreversible.pdf >From the abstract: QQQ The severity of damaging human-induc

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 7, 2:39 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > society stubbornly refuses to take comprehensive steps to deal with > them and their drivers," the first of which is population growth. When > Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, died last week, "the > blogs were full of ‘This is the perso

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, "James A. Donald" wrote: > Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. Or not. Here is a quote from the 25 September 2009 issue of Science Magazine. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol325/issue5948/index.dtl#twis Steven Chu is the U.S. Secretary of Energy and a

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 6, 4:18 pm, Jesse Aldridge wrote: > > At first glance, I don't see how the video relates exactly, but I can > > tell you I would not have invested :-) > > I would have invested.  I would have felt it was the morally > imperative thing to do.  And I would have gotten shafted.  I found it

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 6, 4:38 am, Jesse Aldridge wrote: > I see global warming as more of an economic, game-theoretical > problem.  Assume that cutting emissions means increasing costs of > production (in the short term).  That means countries that don't cut > emissions will have an economic advantage over cou

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Edward K. Ream wrote: > Ops. Got the wrong pdf. Here is the full text of the decision. > > http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Thanks. Skimming the first 50 pp. was a really good read! The "backflips" described in getting ID promoted in classes such as saying a dis

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > On Oct 7, 9:37 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > > > The two views are more strongly related by their utter contempt for > evidence. > > My wish is that we, individually and collectively, become connoisseurs > of evidence. And especially evi

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 7, 9:37 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > The two views are more strongly related by their utter contempt for evidence. My wish is that we, individually and collectively, become connoisseurs of evidence. And especially evidence that *disconfirms* our own views. See, for example, The Black S

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 7, 8:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > In contrast, the deniers have obvious personal agendas that underlies their > "doubt".  In the case of evolution, the religious (rightly!) feel threatened > by the mountain of evidence that we were created by a simple process acting > over billions of

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > What we see in all these works is the dishonesty, pure and simple, of the > opponents of evolution. In particular, the judge in the Kitzmiller case > accused some of the witnesses for the defense (intelligent design) of lying > under oath

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > >> >> Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District >> http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf >> > > BTW, one of my hobbies is reading interesting judicial cases. I wa

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District > http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf > BTW, one of my hobbies is reading interesting judicial cases. I was surprised at first by how easy they are to read. It's hard to beco

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > > For example, we are on the brink of learning in detail, exactly how life > arose. The work of Gerald F. Joyce is particularly exciting: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci%3B1167856v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULT

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > Imo, it is impossible to read any of the following and go away with the > conclusion that evolutionary theory is anything but plain fact: > One of the most disheartening things about such "debates" is that many people fail to realize that

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:19 AM, James A. Donald wrote: > > Kent Tenney wrote: > > The science is beyond me, but I'll take the word of > > 100's of climate scientists from many countries over > > several decades over an economist who says what people > > want to hear. > > Genuine science is re

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > > Jesse Aldridge wrote: > > Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. > Not a supportable proposition. Try reading a year's worth of Science Magazine (as I do) or Nature. You will not find anything at all to support it. Edwar

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

The current glacier melt is not about snowfall, it's about feedback loops. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY about the failure of past experience to deal with exponential changes. Characterizing those who want to mitigate climate change as interested primarily in "population reduc

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > As the communists intended to annihilate the > bourgeoisie, and the Nazis intended to exterminate the > Jews, the greenies intend to destroy industrial > civilization and reduce the earth's population to > "sustainable" levels.  If they ac

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

ne1uno wrote: > so what's your spin on the anti junk science view of > glaciers receding? As Climate skeptic sarcastically observed: "Somehow, man’s burning of fossil fuels in the late 20th century has caused glaciers to begin melting … starting in the 18th century." glacier change is evidenc

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Kent Tenney wrote: > The science is beyond me, but I'll take the word of > 100's of climate scientists from many countries over > several decades over an economist who says what people > want to hear. Genuine science is replicable. And "replicable" does not mean two priests recite the same d

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 6, 3:56 pm, "James A. Donald" wrote: > Jesse Aldridge wrote: > > > The connection to global warming is that there are > > situations where cooperation breaks down. Not because > > people don't understand the situation, but because > > circumstances compel them to take harmful (though

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > > Jesse Aldridge wrote: >  > The connection to global warming is that there are >  > situations where cooperation breaks down.  Not because >  > people don't understand the situation, but because >  > circumstances compel them to take harmf

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Jesse Aldridge wrote: > The connection to global warming is that there are > situations where cooperation breaks down. Not because > people don't understand the situation, but because > circumstances compel them to take harmful (though > logically sound) actions. For example, China and >

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

> At first glance, I don't see how the video relates exactly, but I can > tell you I would not have invested :-) I would have invested. I would have felt it was the morally imperative thing to do. And I would have gotten shafted. I found it shocking and outrageous that so many could take an a

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 5, 4:55 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > And in contrast, the worst article ever published in Scientific > American:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=squeezing-more-oil Just ran across this site:http://www.badscience.net/ If I were a conspiracy buff, I would say there is a c

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 6, 4:38 am, Jesse Aldridge wrote: > Check out this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrnFGP4zks > It had quite an effect on me the first time I watched it. At first glance, I don't see how the video relates exactly, but I can tell you I would not have invested :-) Edward --~--~-

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

> To be fair, this is what they teach about statistic problems in high > school. You should not think of what happened before, and only > consider the situation *right now*. Ah, yes, that's a good point. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

I see global warming as more of an economic, game-theoretical problem. Assume that cutting emissions means increasing costs of production (in the short term). That means countries that don't cut emissions will have an economic advantage over countries that do cut emissions. In Game Theory, they

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jesse Aldridge wrote: > For me the key insight of the Monty Hall problem is that humans, due > to having limited working memory, collapse a sequence of events down > to just the current state.  Our brains are wired to disregard the > initial door and just see the

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Yes. I love this problem. I refused to believe the explanation the first time I heard it. I ended up writing a script to prove it's validity to myself: import random def monty_hall(): doors = ['car', 'goat', 'goat'] random.shuffle(doors) # Assume we guess the first door (doors[0]

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 5, 4:55 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > This article has no basis in either science, mathematics or > economics.  At root, it is enumerate and unscientific. I should have said, innumerate. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 5, 5:21 am, "Ville M. Vainio" wrote: > Hah! I was writing an explanation of why I think this is a prank, and > immediately "got it". It seems writing is much, much more efficient > than just thinking :-). Excellent! BTW, Philip Brocoum, http://www.philipbrocoum.com/, has other interest

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 5, 4:34 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > Take a look at this:http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=967 > > This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen.  The > conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of > winning from 1/3 to 2/3, **not** to 1/2. By the way, I re

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM, derwisch wrote: > > I heard it so often that I can't really get it how one could not get > it, although it took me myself a while to appreciate the problem. Hah! I was writing an explanation of why I think this is a prank, and immediately "got it". It seems writi

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

> I may be autistic or something, but I still don't get it. If you don't switch, the only way you can *win* is if the car is behind your door. If you switch, the only way you can *lose* is if the car is behind your door. There is a 1/3 probability that the car is behind any particular door, so

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

I heard it so often that I can't really get it how one could not get it, although it took me myself a while to appreciate the problem. On Oct 5, 11:49 am, "Ville M. Vainio" wrote: > I may be autistic or something, but I still don't get it. > > (Unless the game has a rule where Monty Hall would o

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Oct 5, 4:34 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen.  The > conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of > winning from 1/3 to 2/3, **not** to 1/2. And in contrast, the worst article ever published in Scientific American: h

Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Edward K. Ream wrote: > Take a look at this: > http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=967 > > This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen.  The > conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of > winning from 1/3 to 2/3, **not** to 1/2.

OT: The Monty Hall Problem

Take a look at this: http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=967 This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen. The conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of winning from 1/3 to 2/3, **not** to 1/2. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You rec