1. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179096 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Haha... Francis Collins bothers me to no end. I just don't understand him.

And here's a link to Marilyn's page on the Monty Hall problem:

http://www.marilynvossavant.com/articles/gameshow.html

"You are indeed correct. My colleagues at work had a ball with this problem, and I dare say that most of them, including me at first, thought you were wrong!

Seth Kalson, Ph.D.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

Maybe Abbas is really on to something. Once we see the answer, we think it absurd that other people shouldn't see it. But before we saw the answer, there was genuine confusion there. Much like atheists and theists. The difference I guess is that getting probability problems wrong isn't a virtue and a ticket to heaven.

2. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179088 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm

@Jaz-

It's not a rumour. If you go to Marilyn vos Savant's website, you'll see all those letters (apologies included) archived.

3. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179087 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Ah, I think I used the term "event" incorrectly. It should have been Probability 1 and Probability 2. It's been years since I took a class in it. I think we're in agreement. Thanks for the correction. mordacious1's explanation is also good.

Well, I learned something today. Actually, I let go of a superstition today. That's pretty neat.

4. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179076 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 1:36 pm

I continued to think about this and I think I'm still going to side with AtheistJon. I looked at it this way:

Event 1: For 7 consecutive reds, the probability is (1/2)^7

Event 2: For 6 consecutive reds followed by a black, the probability is (1/2)^6*(1/2) = (1/2)^7

The odds/probability are still the same. One might be tempted to say (I was) that it didn't need to be in that order to get a black on the seventh. But if that weren't the case, we wouldn't have the prior knowledge of 6 consecutive reds hence changing the problem.
We only have two possibilities: 7 consecutive reds OR 6 consecutive reds followed by a black.

I think it's important to identify that these aren't simultaneous events. I think that's at the source of the confusion.

5. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179040 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 12:32 pm

AtheistJon - Haha... yes that is more intuitive. The way that works best for me is to ask whether you'd want two guesses or one guess. When you switch, you're essentially getting two guesses. When you don't, it's just one

And thanks for the card solution. I feel like an idiot for not seeing it.

6. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179023 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 12:02 pm

@AtheistJon - Is it 50%? (red/black cards question)

Oh, and thanks for answering the roulette question. Your answer has satisfied my brain, but not my gut. I guess that's exactly what Abbas was talking about.

edit- The Monty Hall problem is:

"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

The problem was solved correctly by Marilyn vos Savant, but she got a ton of feedback from proper academicians and mathematicians insisting that she was wrong. But she wasn't. It's quite amusing.

edit2 - Oops, it's exactly what you described.

7. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179012 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 11:47 am

Perhaps one of you can help me out with this. Abbas talks about the fallibility of humans when it comes to having an intuitive understanding of probability and as an example he says that people, after seeing 6 successive reds in roulette, bet on the next one being black. But doesn't probability favour you when you bet black and against the possibility of 7 consecutive reds? I suspect I'm wrong about that much like I was intuitively wrong about the Monty Hall problem when I first encountered it.

8. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #178792 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 4:16 am

Szymanowksi - Actually the fact that the possibility of such an interpretation didn't even occur to you shows you in a very positive light. It shows that you're the polar opposite of what I accused you of being. Although I'm tempted to blame the appalling racism on YouTube for my rather embarrassing hyperparanoia, I take full responsibility.

Oh, if you do decide to transcribe the interview, let me know if you want to team up. I used to work as a subtitler in the past (most days were terrible, but on some days I got to transcribe the ethereal voice of Sir David Attenborough), so from experience I'd say it would take around 6-8 hours to transcribe the entire video with respectable accuracy. I should have time to take on about 10 minutes of this video.

9. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #178776 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 3:04 am

Szymanowski - Sincere apologies for misunderstanding you. It appears this Monday morning has got the better of me. Once again, I apologise.

edit - Oh, I thought the interview was very good. Great questions.

10. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #178771 by gnomead on May 12, 2008 at 2:54 am

Szymanowski - "The video is a bit grainy! It seems like it was filmed in a cave in Pakistan :) ... "

Apparently even a 50 minute display of a total lack of religious dogma is insufficient for some people to look beyond an individual's name and ethnicity. As someone of the same skin colour as the interviewer, it's sad to think that regardless of how rationally I think or speak, I will not be seen as an individual, but only as an inhabitant of caves in Pakistan. A joke made in poor taste.

11. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178473 by gnomead on May 11, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Orion: "Yes precisely. That's why it is so jarring when he resorts to the same tactics. We know he's way above that kind of thing. He doesn't need it."

I'd hardly call it a tactic in RD's case. One of the things I most admire about RD's writing is his tremendous ability to create analogies - analogies that slice through difficult subjects like a knife through butter. When formulating these analogies, I suspect he evaluates them for their explaining power and not for their moral or political correctness. I think this was merely an extension of that. And even those who disapprove of this have to admit that the Hitler analogy had great explaining power. As others have mentioned before, he said the same thing to Haggard. It's bizarre to suggest that it was a 'tactic.'

When Coulter says, "John Edwards is a fag," she knows exactly the sort of reaction she will get and that's exactly what she's looking for. She's a pathetic woman who makes up for her inability to say anything worthwhile by saying such things. Reputation says a lot about whether or not these are 'tactics.'

12. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178238 by gnomead on May 11, 2008 at 1:45 am

Tosser: Richard's defense would apply to Coulter too: She was only comparing Obama to Hitler to the extent that they both had books that the public should have read before the person came into power. Or as Dawkins said, "That is the only point of resemblance, and it is true."

Oh, come on. Coulter makes a living saying that sort of thing. Bigotry is all that ghastly woman has to offer. Richard on the other hand is a polite and well-mannered man. I personally don't see any problem with RD's comment, but apparently Hitler is a lot more taboo than I had thought.