```X-Message-Number: 19840
From:  var s1 = "Ettinger"; var s2 = "aol.com"; var s3 = s1 + "@" + s2; document.write("<a href='mailto:" + s3 + "'>" + s3 + "</a>");
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:52:54 EDT
Subject: probability problems

--part1_170.125ced6a.2a927c66_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The answer to Thomas Donaldson's conundrum (below) is as follows.

The most basic assumption of probability theory is that the sample tends to
be representative of the population (and larger samples tend to be more
representative).

In other words, what we see is typical of what is. This is sometimes not the
case--one could make a good argument that it is almost never the case, except
in situations of unusual simplicity, such as games of chance or gas
mechanics--but it's the only starting point we have.

In any event, this (a) does not tell us how to define the population, and (b)
it does not guarantee anything about a particular case. Also, of course, (c)
probabilities are sometimes contingent and subject to feedback, i.e. bets and
related actions can be self-fulfilling or self-negating, as Donaldson,
Bozzonetti and many others have noted.

We know that bad experimental design is possible, because professional
scientists are often guilty of it. We know that invalid arguments can seem
persuasive to some, becaust this often happens. But that is a far cry from
concluding that there is no such thing as good design or valid argument.

Even in mathematics, supposedly the most rigorous and least vulnerable of
disciplines, there can be "proofs" that seem persuasive to some but not to
others. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. If nothing else, there can
always be disagreement on axioms or postulates or definitions or undefineds.
So there is no iron-clad security anywhere, but there is still the reasonable
and the unreasonable.

And who is to judge?  You and I, of course.

Robert Ettinger

---------------
> OK, so when an event
> hasn't happened, we can try to work out its probability by putting it
> in a class of events many of which HAVE happened, and work out its
> probability that way. But clearly we can't use just any class of
> how to properly choose the class of events we're going to use, or
> --- as Haftka's note has shown --- we become lost among the various
> choices, some of which say yes and others of which say impossible.
>

--part1_170.125ced6a.2a927c66_boundary

Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19840

```