6 ms·
This article started off really clear and straightforward, then it dove into stuff that I clearly wasn't going to be able to follow, and upon skipping it I arri
by unphased 4y ago
This article started off really clear and straightforward, then it dove into stuff that I clearly wasn't going to be able to follow, and upon skipping it I arrived at the explanation which was was plainly obvious from common sense.
- andreareina 4y agoCommon sense can mislead, so it's instructive to make it rigorous to see whether it does indeed hold up. Not for everything or even most things, otherwise you'd be analysis paralysis sets in.
- jiggywiggy 4y agoIn this case the author was a bit silly. He also used common sense to determine he had no way of determining the probability of a rigged event. And therefore using Bayesian probability looked fancy but didn't help learn anything new. I remember reading first paragraph and thinking wow, bayesian has a way of helping determining the odds of that, but no. Either he wanted to educate or is so involved with statistics that it became his default way of framing problems.
- lupire 4y ago> Either he wanted to educate Yeah, Professor Tao has been known to try that from time to time.
- rubatuga 4y agoYeah, that article really took a sudden nosedive
- minihat 4y ago>such a number is often dutifully provided to such journalists, who in turn report it as some sort of quantitative demonstration of how remarkable the event was. Apparently the conclusions are not common sense if you are a journalist.
- Rioghasarig 4y agoWell that's what mathematicians like to do.