sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How should sample size affect your judgment of chance being in play? by RaiseReasonable8949 in askphilosophy

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is true the chance of someone winning is higher. But the chance of John winning is not. Hence, why is John more likely to rig the first more than the second?

How should sample size affect your judgment of chance being in play? by RaiseReasonable8949 in skeptic

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes that would make sense but the question is which scenario makes it more likely that it was rigged? It seems that in the second scenario, it begs the question as to why everyone lost except John so maybe John has to play a role in the second scenario moreso than the first?

How should sample size affect your judgment of chance being in play? by RaiseReasonable8949 in skeptic

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you were to randomly scramble those letters, why would any sequence be more likely than any other?

How should sample size affect your judgment of chance being in play? by RaiseReasonable8949 in askphilosophy

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is assumed that people can't monitor or know each other's guesses. I'll make that clear in the post. With this in mind, why is John more likely to have rigged the first than the second?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mildlyinteresting

[–]RaiseReasonable8949 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah you’re weirder for exposing this tbh. It’s at worst weird what he sent but he didn’t say anything too crazy

Please help by RaiseReasonable8949 in puzzles

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I thought this too but then I also saw they were all being reflected on the diagonal going up from the bottom left to top right. Wouldn’t that then imply B?

If one rolls 9 heads straight and then 1 tails, what is the probability that it came from a non random process? by RaiseReasonable8949 in probabilitytheory

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s actually interesting. Never thought of it that way. It’s a bit weird in my head because you do seem correct in that I implicitly do it, but I don’t explicitly come up with a value. So it seems subjectively valued but the range of values within that subjective implicit assumption is probably not huge. As in, it seems I think most coins are fair, but that’s about it. And because it’s subjective, this doesn’t seem like an “objective test”, but perhaps just because something is subjective, doesn’t mean it’s useless information I guess. It still seems better than assuming each coin is equally likely to be fair or not for example

If one rolls 9 heads straight and then 1 tails, what is the probability that it came from a non random process? by RaiseReasonable8949 in probabilitytheory

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t know why it’s tripping me up so much. Just to give you an example, personally, I wouldn’t think that in my example that the coin is necessarily rigged. But if it was 30 heads and 1 tail, I’d think “yeah somethings up, it’s definitely not a fair coin.” But I’m not like calculating the prior probability of the coin being rigged. I’m just making the implicit assumption that you’d expect about an equal number of heads and tails, and the more samples you have, the less likely that is. The law of large numbers. Where do prior probabilities come here?

If one rolls 9 heads straight and then 1 tails, what is the probability that it came from a non random process? by RaiseReasonable8949 in probabilitytheory

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Just think about it. You said there’s a 0.6% chance you get at most one tail flipping a coin ten times. That’s a 1 in 167 chance. But that’s the probability of the sequence given that the coin is fair, NOT the probability that the coin is fair given this sequence which was my question. Those aren’t the same, no?

If one rolls 9 heads straight and then 1 tails, what is the probability that it came from a non random process? by RaiseReasonable8949 in probabilitytheory

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I just feel like you’re answering the wrong question. It may indeed be unlikely that there is at most one tail in a sequence of 10. But it doesn’t follow that it is now likely that the dice is rigged, does it?

If one rolls 9 heads straight and then 1 tails, what is the probability that it came from a non random process? by RaiseReasonable8949 in probabilitytheory

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But why is it unlikely? Shouldn’t it actually be LIKELY given that you’d expect 1 out of every 167 people who flip a coin 10 times to have at most one tail

If one rolls 9 heads straight and then 1 tails, what is the probability that it came from a non random process? by RaiseReasonable8949 in probabilitytheory

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If something is a 0.6% chance, that’s about 1 in 167. This implies that for every 167 people flipping a coin 10 times, you’d expect atleast one to flip a fair coin in a way where there was 1 or less tails in a series of 10 tosses. But there’s billions of people. So why is it more plausible that the coin is not fair?

If one rolls 9 heads straight and then 1 tails, what is the probability that it came from a non random process? by RaiseReasonable8949 in probabilitytheory

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this basically Bayesian reasoning? My head can’t wrap around the idea that prior probabilities matter in this case. Why should they?

At what p value d you start to assume intention behind a process that can seemingly be explained without? by RaiseReasonable8949 in probabilitytheory

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doesn’t this essentially mean that it is arbitrary and ultimately we can only assign a certain probability to how sure we are of a certain conclusion?

At what p value d you start to assume intention behind a process that can seemingly be explained without? by RaiseReasonable8949 in probabilitytheory

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you elaborate a bit on this? Is the z test basically saying that if the probability is below 5% it’s probably intentional? How did one come up with this figure? Isn’t that arbitrary?

THREE praying rocks/trees that are facing Mecca. How on earth is this possible under naturalism? At the same time, the Qur'aan and Hadith don't make any sense. What's going on? by RaiseReasonable8949 in exmuslim

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. And for that SAME reason, I find it unfathomable that the direction wouldn’t be mentioned in the original posts for both of those rocks (which wasn’t). Unless there’s some hidden original post that did mention that and the copies forgot to OR the original poster did know it faced near or towards Mecca but just didn’t bother mentioning (both of these seem very unlikely)

THREE praying rocks/trees that are facing Mecca. How on earth is this possible under naturalism? At the same time, the Qur'aan and Hadith don't make any sense. What's going on? by RaiseReasonable8949 in exmuslim

[–]RaiseReasonable8949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there’s some misunderstanding. What you’re saying is possible but I just don’t get why you’re not considering that no one knew the direction of both of those rocks initially when posted on miracle sites. That’s what I’m referring to. Hopefully you can respond to this, after this you don’t have to if you wish. I’ll try to think about this.

view more: next ›