When's the last time we worked a case, just you and me?
Agents Paige and Plant, FBI.
What is going on with you?
I'm just trying to be nice.
Definitely a ghost.
What's up, doc?
Supernatural all new next Thursday at 8/7c on The CW.
For more infomation >> Gas Leak Forces Evacuation At Restaurants - Duration: 0:23. 
For more infomation >> Court docs: Sharpe told friends he wanted to 'prove a point' - Duration: 1:41. 
For more infomation >> 김충재 '연예인이된 충재씨' - Duration: 1:12. 
For more infomation >> September-like temperatures expected - Duration: 3:19. 
For more infomation >> Walmart Shooting Suspect Arrested After High-Speed Chase | NBC Nightly News - Duration: 1:44. 
For more infomation >> Celebrities Accidentally Tweeted Russian Propaganda During 2016 Election | NBC Nightly News - Duration: 1:52. 
For more infomation >> Evening Forecast for November 2 - Duration: 3:52. 
For more infomation >> NBA Daily Show: Nov. 2 - The Starters - Duration: 22:08. 
For more infomation >> Marysville School: Rising from ashes through 'mindfulness' - Duration: 4:49. 
For more infomation >> Featuring Musician Megan Ni...
For more infomation >> Vous n'êtes pas gros ! Votre estomac est gonflé, voici comment vous en débarrasser ! - Duration: 4:05. 
For more infomation >> Girl, Interrupted (1999) – Winona Ryder – "Am I sane... or, am I crazy?" - Duration: 4:44. 
For more infomation >> Girl, Interrupted (1999) – Winona Ryder – Memories - Duration: 4:03. 
For more infomation >> Sheila : Ses troublan.tes révél.ations sur la m.ort de son fils Ludovic Chancel - Duration: 4:04. 
Back in my university days, I studied physics and statistics (yeah, I know, I was the life
of the party!).
Statistics can be used in a meaningful and accurate way.
For example, if we toss two regular dice, we can accurately calculate the percentage
chances of all possible results.
For example, there's a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a seven (approximately 16.67%).
If we throw the dice enough times, the results will tend towards those percentages.
As the number of tosses increases, the actual distribution of results gets closer and closer
towards the expected distribution.
The results of lottery games and the like can also be accurately described using statistics.
They're testable, provable, and repeatable.
But one thing I learnt during my uni days is that statistics is often used to predict
the unpredictable – not necessarily by statisticians, but by so called experts in various fields.
These percentages are often thrown about by the media as fact, when in actuality, they're
just someone's (albeit educated) opinion.
The result of their claims is often unverifiable, regardless of the actual outcome.
For example, James Stavridis, a retired American Navy Admiral and former commander of NATO,
has publicly stated that there is at least a 10% chance of nuclear war between North
Korea and the US.
Obviously, this percentage is just his educated guess.
It's certainly not statistics in that it's not testable and cannot be verified.
Unless we had access to a series of nuclear war data from throughout history, then this
10% figure is basically just a big guess.
If nuclear war between North Korea and the US never eventuated, then Stavridis could
simply say, "Well, there was only a 10% chance".
If nuclear war did eventuate, then he could say, "There!
I told you so!".
But does either outcome prove his original statistic?
No, not at all!
Either nuclear war will happen, that is, a chance of 100%, or it will not, that is, a
0% chance.
There is no in-between.
I don't mean to criticise Stavidis.
He obvious knows a lot more about military conflict than I do.
I understand his intention.
I don't think he's trying to be statistically accurate.
It's more that he's trying to show that nuclear war is a very real possibility.
It's more of a warning sign than a display of his mathematical knowledge.
Other statistics often use population data to make predictions of particular outcomes.
For example, there is a 6.33% chance of males dying from lung cancer in the US.
Does that mean that every male US citizen has an exactly 6.33% chance of dying from
lung cancer?
Of course not!
It all depends on their individual lifestyles, smoking habits, environmental influences,
and other such factors.
6.33% refers only to the American male population as a whole.
Some people probably have close to a 0% chance of dying from lung cancer due to their DNA
and healthy lifestyle.
But that doesn't mean that population statistics aren't useful.
If it's found that 13.97% of males develop prostate cancer in their lifetime, well this
can be used by government agencies and other organisations to help determine where they
should focus their funding and research dollars.
Using statistics to predict the unpredictable or unprovable is an exercise in futility.
For example, Dr Stephen Unwin has concluded that there is a 67% chance that God exists.
The problem with this is that it's unprovable – either God exists and will make his presence
known, in which case the chance was always 100%.
Or God doesn't exist, but no living person will ever know because it could always be
hypothesised that God does exist.
The 67% figure cannot be verified in any discernible way.
The same is true for predicting the existence of alien life, for example.
Either aliens exist 100%, or they don't – 0%.
By making up mathematical models and arriving at some percentage chance of alien life, it
doesn't change the facts one iota.
The only possible reason I can think of in coming up with the odds of the existence of
extraterrestrial life is a monetary one.
If the SETI Institute (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence Institute) can purport a certain
chance of discovering extraterrestrial life, then they can acquire more funding.
If they said there is a 0% chance of finding alien life, then of course, nobody would give
them any money.
I'm not commenting on whether this is good or bad.
I'm just arguing that statistics is often used not for mathematical reasons, but for
individual or political gain.
Economists will state things like, "There is a 75% chance of economic collapse in the
next 5 years!".
Of course, they get more airtime when they make such sensational claims.
Often, they have something to sell as well, such as a new book, or an investment plan.
There is no way we can prove either way whether their statistic is correct, or not.
Politicians will state things like, "University participation rates have climbed to an all-time
high.
This proves that our policies are working!".
But they fail to mention that many of those new graduates can't find well-paying jobs
and that wage growth has either stagnated or gone backwards in real terms.
They also fail to mention the high rate of underemployment.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about statistics.
Statistics can be used very accurately to predict the outcome of repeatable events,
such as a coin toss or winning the lottery.
But be wary when you hear economists and politicians bandying about statistics – they're often
trying to manipulate you.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét