Andrew Paquette
Administrator
Here is an article that might be an interesting read for some of you: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-skeptics-misapply-the-law-very-large-numbers
Funny guy! Not only is the answer "yes", but she is the first and only person I've ever dated and we've been married since 1987. On top of that, I had a dream of her two years before we met. In the dream, I went through a series of events that, in the dream, I understood occurred about five years after we were already married. After waking from the dream, I was pretty surprised to have a memory of having been married for many years, considering I still hadn't dated anyone. Two years later, I saw my future wife in the doorway of a classroom and immediately recognized her as my wife from the dream. I didn't believe in precognition at the time, was an atheist, and thought that such subjects were a pile of poppycock, but had to admit, she looked exactly like the woman I was married to in the dream. About five years after we married, the scenes from the dream actually took place.This seems extremely unlikely...
Somebody actually married Andy?
The person who wrote the article talks about me at length in that article and in a book she wrote about coincidences.Hi Andy, nice to see you here again! I have transferred that article to my Kindle to read later, but I noticed your name appears as one of the references.
David
Malf, when people discuss their personal experiences, I don't think it is nice to make jokes at their expense. You are getting dangerously close to the point when I'll have to intervene.This seems extremely unlikely...
Somebody actually married Andy?
Hi Andy!Here is an article that might be an interesting read for some of you: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-skeptics-misapply-the-law-very-large-numbers
H
What you were doing was forecasting. There is a whole set of statistical tools that are applied to analyzing forecasts - and I haven't had enough coffee yet to get into those at the moment :), but time is a factor. Also, the analysis should, IMO, be based on your trials alone. So every time you get the sense that you know what the roll will be, you record it and then roll. That is different than pure relative frequency of events over time or many trials (AKA, standard probability) with which the law of large numbers is associated.
nice :)Here is an article that might be an interesting read for some of you: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-skeptics-misapply-the-law-very-large-numbers
What you were doing was forecasting. There is a whole set of statistical tools that are applied to analyzing forecasts - and I haven't had enough coffee yet to get into those at the moment :), but time is a factor. Also, the analysis should, IMO, be based on your trials alone. So every time you get the sense that you know what the roll will be, you record it and then roll. That is different than pure relative frequency of events over time or many trials (AKA, standard probability) with which the law of large numbers is associated.
The Law of Large Numbers does not apply ex ante, nor in any other case where there is not a large number domain to sample from in the first place.
I'm glad you understood what he wrote because I didn't. Looking forward to an explanation from someone. :)Right.
Unwinding after having played a gig all afternoon. I will attempt to develop what I think the proper approach should be tomorrow if I have time.
Do you mean me with 'he'?I'm glad you understood what he wrote because I didn't. Looking forward to an explanation from someone. :)
It may be the way you are stating this. Do you mean that because there are not a large number of events to compare it to, it cannot be compared? An irony of this is what isn't mentioned in the article. This is probably the most impressive example from the point of view of calculating the probability, and the probability being larger than other examples, but I have other similar examples. One happened within weeks of this event and followed a similar pattern. I was playing Scrabble with my wife when I suddenly had the inspiration to say "I will now withdraw all of the remaining "E" tiles from the bag (without looking, of course.) We had just started, and a quick look at the board showed there were eleven "E"'s remaining. I proceeded to pull out ten in a row before faltering and announcing I wouldn't get the last one, which I didn't. Another that happened when I was a teenager working at Comics & Fantasies comic book store in San Jose back in 1978 or so, I correctly announced every dice roll in advance of rolling it, but first determined the best roll for me and the worst roll for my opponent, my fellow clerk, an older teenager named Greg. Greg was so annoyed with my "luck" that he kept expressing his outrage during the game. At a certain point, I had almost all of his pieces on the bar, a nearly impossible position, as anyone who plays backgammon would know. Before I made the roll that would put his last couple of pieces on the bar, he picked up the board and tossed it into our front window.Do you mean me with 'he'?
The Law of Large Numbers does not apply, if there is not a large number to begin with. That was the essence of Beitman's contention was it not?
Make no mistake: There is truth to the Law of Very Large Numbers, but it can only be properly applied when we have data for those large numbers.
It may be the way you are stating this. Do you mean that because there are not a large number of events to compare it to, it cannot be compared?
Based on your answer, you may enjoy my first published journal article on the subject:Great response...
Yes, and two other contexts of the Law of Large Numbers Fallacy. There would be indeed three contexts of Law of Large Number Fallacies: Wrong context (your example story), inestimable (what you cite above here) and single event.
Wrong Context/Species
"What I actually thought at the time was that it was an example of the Law of Large Numbers, where improbable events are bound to happen to someone, somewhere, and I happened to be the someone that time."You had incorrectly assumed that a life should contain a certain number of paranormal-like events, when each one has to be taken in the contexts of its own species' set of probability, and not in the context of a 'life'. With some probability violations, a life may not be long enough to constitute a 'Large Number' domain. The context is actually the probability arrival distribution inside that species of odd event - and not the probability of an event inside a 'life'.If you predict that aliens will land on the White House lawn on Tuesday and it comes to pass - that event should be examined for incredulity as to its species of improbability - and not be excused as "every life has its oddities..." - which would suffer an ad hoc fallacy.Inestimable (Beitman's Point and Yours)
Abiogenesis proponents cite that, given so many planets - by the Law of Large Numbers, life had to appear somewhere, so why not our planet? Therefore abiogenesis is the null hypothesis.This is called and Appeal to Plenitude - and is really simply an ad hoc plea and not a real scientific explanation. As you mention above, this is a case where "there are not large number of events to compare our event to", so the LoLN does not actually apply.Single Event (ex ante)
When I was a young executive in Washington D.C. - my spouse and I were hanging around the townhouse one Saturday, when the phone rang. This was before we had Caller ID. It popped into my mind that this was a young lady with whom we had not spoken in 4 years (since her wedding), and that she was calling to explain that she was now expecting their first child. So I answered the phone "Hello Beth, I am so glad that you are expecting your first child." Dead silence on the other end of the line...To my amazement it was Beth, and she was calling to announce they were expecting their first child.Now - I had never tried a stunt like that before, and never tried such a thing again. It was a single ex ante event. The Law of Large Numbers does not apply in this case.Note: if one predicts that a meteor will cross the night sky in the next 30 seconds, that is not an example of ex ante. That is an example a priori reasoning.
I didn't believe in precognition at the time, was an atheist, and thought that such subjects were a pile of poppycock,
The funny thing is that at the time, though I found the event remarkable, I did not think of it as paranormal or psi.
I'm glad you understood what he wrote because I didn't. Looking forward to an explanation from someone. :)
I think that my interest in bad science in general, was the realisation that a lot of modern science seems to be powered on false reasoning of various sorts. Using the large numbers argument without making any attempt to estimate the frequency of the events you are trying to explain, is just one example.
David