Agnostic.com

3 0

What does anyone think of the switch from deciding problems on certainty to deciding mainly on Probabilities?

For example : Which town should I choose for my vacation next month . Town A 50% current Covid infection Town B 60% infection with a good baseball game coming up?

You would think that the amount of betting practices going on and the keenness that each person cheers on their home team or favorite player we would be absolutely prepared . But it really is a change from B & W thinking to 50 shades of gray.

The BBC did try out predicting rain by the percentage chance of rainfall would actually occur at a particular spot but that did not last more that 2 months.

In my science career I well remember the sudden switch we are talking about when in my reading it became apparent that it was virtually impossible to say where an electron is at any particular time. Working in equations based upon the mathematics of probability was outside my reach.

For some reason I began to accept it when the lecturer said β€œ When you really think about it there is a very small probability that an electron that is traveling within an atom of YOUR body also has a chance of traveling through MY body space. . Pause . And for that matter your electrons have an even smaller chance of traveling through Marylin Monro’s dead body remains and a rock on Mars.
Expanding the mind by consideration of extremes sometime works.
What is going to accustom us to our forthcoming surge of probability thinking? Ask an Insurance mathematician.??

Mcflewster 8 June 2
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Realizing I'm avoiding, I'm going to stay home.

Me too.

1

I propose that we would all do well to take a course or two in probability and statistics. That won't help a LOT (I've had a couple of classes and still don't know much,) but it'll help a little.

3

I always did think in probabilities and percentages, mainly because I never believed in absolutes. Absolutes are firstly faith based positions, secondly they are anti-progressive, (nothing more to learn), and thirdly they do not accept nuance, and not accepting nuance is the basis of nearly all conflict, and the foundation stone of anti- intellectualism. But most of all you hardly ever find them in nature. (Note the "hardly ever" qualifier. LOL)

"anti-progressive, (nothing more to learn)" several good thinking phrases but I like this one the best. We do only stop learning when we die that is if we live life to the fullest.

This is a nice perspective. I, sadly, DID spend the first half of my life thinking in absolutes - about morals and facts, anyway. (I gave more leeway to probabilities). Perhaps this was the curse of religion, or perhaps it was just the vanity of youth. πŸ˜‰ I take a more nuanced approach these days.

@AmyTheBruce Yes it does tend to be part of growing up, that you lose the absolutist views of youth. But of course the main point of religious indoctrination, is to keep people in a life long child like state, so that they are easy to exploit and don't question.

Chemistry is largely in Continuums -or is it? PH- yes/ Oxidant vs Reductant- yes/ But Poison ? are things labelled poison always going to kill you? You ar right it does depend on your mode of thinking that is inprinted by one means or another.

@Mcflewster Poison certainly works in continuums. The 'lethal dose' term is based on the idea that, a small dose will make a few people ill and perhaps kill a very small number, even a dose large enough to kill some will still leave some unaffected. A very large dose kills everyone, but the term lethal dose is technically used for a dose in the middle of the continuum, which will kill half the people/animals/plants, because that is usually the point where everyone feels some effect.

@Fernapple Interesting You seem well up on poisons.. i note the Horticultural connection. Perhaps all your knowledge is through practical experience literally in the field ?

@Mcflewster No that is pure book learning I am sorry to say, inspired in part by a friend who worked in the military on chemical and nuc containment, who inspired me to read up about it. But having said that, I am not in theory 'organic' or any thing like that, but I just don't find I need to use chemicals much. The odd patch of tough weeds on uncultivated ground may get a splash of Glysophate, that's about it. Slugs, weevils, aphid and whitefly etc. are all delt with using nematodes, or parasitic wasps, just because they are cheap, easy to use and last longer.

People who buy into easy short cut answers, like the organic label, are asking for trouble, its very silly. Pure distilled water is inorganic, got to be dangerous, but botulinum is organic. So which would you rather have in your glass ? The organic movement sold the idea that traditional, (which is what they really meant,) is safe, while something that has been tested in a lab, and run through, in most countries, national safety standards, must be dangerous. " Cause yer known, guys in white coats are always being paid by some conspiritors, like, an' tellin' yer like there ain't no edges on the planet. But fred yer know 'e says 'e found this stuff in a cave you can spray on yer tomatoes, an people bin usin it fer years, 'e says its organic, an calls it white lead, or somethin like."

It is in short, just a sub-set of the anti- science and anti-intellectual movements.

And it has much to answer for, including poisoned soils in vineyards, so toxic they are classified as dangerous waste. (You see copper/heavy metal products, because they are old fashioned, are safe and organic ! ) Until the police catch you, that is. And some appalling animal welfare cases, where animals with perfectly curable ailments, were denied perfectly effective drugs and other cures, because they are not organic. Or even in the worst cases, because you do not use vets at all, if you are organic.

If people want to buy into pseudo-religions like the organic movement, to save themselves the trouble of thinking and enquiring into the true origins of their food. Then like all people who buy into religion, looking for easy lazy answers, they will be fleeced and led round the mulberry bush, and end up acheiving exactly the opposite of what they intended in many cases. And yes I am well aware that there have been many disasters involving, high tec farming and food production, including DDT, nicotinoids, salt build ups from irrigation, over use of antibiotics etc. etc. and that therefore mainstream food production does need to be held up to scrutiny, and that the organic movement especially in its early days did much good, but the time for mindless idealogical crusades is over. (Was in my youth, half a century ago a long time member of the soil association.) But the mainstream media and culture are now well aware of the risks, and the need to ask questions, especially detailed well researched questions.

@Fernapple We have obviously touched on something very important to you . Thanks for the stimulous in this direction

@Mcflewster I nearly forgot what the original subject was, but I guess that in the end it has come full cirle. Because "detailed well researched questions" and "ideaological crusades" are nearly the same as percentages vs. absolutes.

@Fernapple "detailed well researched questions" is the key part of my campaign to encourage science for everyone and that includes well prepared experiments at stimulating new avenues of thought in front of real live religionists. Do you meet in any live group format e.g local group?

@Mcflewster Yes but I was very young only a junior member, then I started work and was only a postally active member.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:501899
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.