What's wrong (or right) with Bush's statement?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Go get the whole Courant Institute, this is barely more than the definition of probability.

Here is the way you originally stated your premise:

Quote:

If WMD were no longer in Iraq by the time we invaded, then the next time we have the same situation, or the next, the WMD will still be there. That's what it means to talk about a probability.

That is an absurd contention...and a misapplication of probability theory and of logic.

If I can get someone more adept at explaining your error...I will, but from your comment above, if several statistic/probability experts were to show you that you were wrong...you would insist that you are correct anyway.

In any case, here are a few appropriate comments stated without attribution (simply because I do not know who wrote them.)

Our first intuitive ideas about probability can be fraught with fallacies, in that they sometimes do not obey the axioms they should

The appeal to probability is a (A fallacy in logical argumentation), often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen, irrespective of how unlikely it is. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia.

Some examples are:

There are many hackers that use the internet. Therefore, if you use the internet without a firewall, it is inevitable that you will be hacked sooner or later

AMD has been catching up to Intel in recent years. In a few years they will definitely take over Intel's position, and eventually put them out of business altogether.

When soccer becomes popular in a town, hooliganism will become a major problem. Thus, if we allow a soccer team in our town, we will be overrun by hooligans.

While not considered a "true" fallacy by some (owing to the fact that it is rarely used by itself), the appeal to probability is a common trend in many arguments, enough for many to consider it a fallacy of itself.

It's not my fault that you are misunderstanding what I meant. What I meant was that when we invaded Iraq, there was some probability that they still had hidden WMD. Let's say for the sake of having a number to talk about that it was .3. In this one case, we invaded and found no WMD. But if, some time later, we invade another country under the same circumstances, there is still a probability of .3 that they have hidden WMD. Under the very same circumstances exactly, the next one may actually have the hidden WMD. If the second one is also clean, then the third one may. Even if both Iraq and the second country are clean when we get in, we nonetheless expect about 30% of the countries invaded under those circumstances to really have hidden WMD. That is what probability means. I'm not some amateur who took a couple of classes. I have two degrees in Physics and have worked as a physicist at large, prestigious companies, and am quite capable of understanding what the definition of probability is.

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's not my fault that you are misunderstanding what I meant. What I meant was that when we invaded Iraq, there was some probability that they still had hidden WMD. Let's say for the sake of having a number to talk about that it was .3. In this one case, we invaded and found no WMD. But if, some time later, we invade another country under the same circumstances, there is still a probability of .3 that they have hidden WMD. Under the very same circumstances exactly, the next one may actually have the hidden WMD. If the second one is also clean, then the third one may. Even if both Iraq and the second country are clean when we get in, we nonetheless expect about 30% of the countries invaded under those circumstances to really have hidden WMD. That is what probability means. I'm not some amateur who took a couple of classes. I have two degrees in Physics and have worked as a physicist at large, prestigious companies, and am quite capable of understanding what the definition of probability is.

You also are exceptionally stubborn.

Should I remove that from my considerations?

In any case...you are incorrect...but I acknowledge I do not have the ability to explain your error in a way that is definitive. So...unless I am able to get an expert to come here an do a better job...you will have to continue in your error. (And I suspect that even if I were to get an acknowledged expert in the area to show you your error...you would persist in the error anyway.)

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way, Brandon...

...the "particular logic" you are using with regard to "probability"...namely that since we did not find WMD in Iraq we have increased the probability that we will find them when we invade some other country..."

Frank, that was not what I said. I meant something quite different.

Let's say you find a dictatorship that once had WMD and claims to have eliminated them, but you consider there to be a probability of .3 that it is merely hiding them. You invade and find nothing. A year later, you find a country in a similar situation, with a .3 probability that it is concealing WMD. You invade this other country, but find nothing. Now a few years later, you find a third country in the same situation and invade....etc.

I am saying that if the probability is .3, eventually you will run into one that is hiding WMD from you. In fact you will do so 30% of the time.

I am certainly not saying that your success or failure to find WMD in one exerts influence over what you will find in the next one. You know I do have a couple of Physics degrees, and they do make us take probability and statistics courses before we get the diploma.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way, Brandon...

...the "particular logic" you are using with regard to "probability"...namely that since we did not find WMD in Iraq we have increased the probability that we will find them when we invade some other country..."

Frank, that was not what I said. I meant something quite different.

Let's say you find a dictatorship that once had WMD and claims to have eliminated them, but you consider there to be a probability of .3 that it is merely hiding them. You invade and find nothing. A year later, you find a country in a similar situation, with a .3 probability that it is concealing WMD. You invade this other country, but find nothing. Now a few years later, you find a third country in the same situation and invade....etc.

I am saying that if the probability is .3, eventually you will run into one that is hiding WMD from you. In fact you will do so 30% of the time.

I am certainly not saying that your success or failure to find WMD in one exerts influence over what you will find in the next one. You know I do have a couple of Physics degrees, and they do make us take probability and statistics courses before we get the diploma.

This has got to be the wildest argument I have ever heard since hearing conservative arguments for the Iraq war. You think the probability of there being WMD was high because we struck out two times before (where?) because in the laws of probality (or whatever) you will eventually find what you are looking for if you search enough in enough places.

We don't have to rely on vague notions of probability. We had people inspecting Iraq right up to just before the invasion and Bush told them to go home. We should have let the inspections continue.

My "error" as you call it, is to believe that if an event has a probability of .3, then, as it is repeated, the fraction of positive occurrences of the event, will approach .3, which is the definition of what a probability of .3 means.

Nowhere, I am talking about hypothetical Bernoulli trials.

You have misquoted and misunderstood what I said. I said that if you toss a fair coin and fail to get heads the first time, you still may get heads the second time. If you don't get it the second time, nonetheless as you continue to toss the coin, the percentage of heads will approach 50%. This is all that I said, and it is, frankly, what probability means.

Hypothetically, if we invaded a series of countries, each of which had a probability of .3 of having hidden WMD, failing to find it in the first country or the second does not imply that we will not find it in the 3rd. I am not saying that the probability in Iraq was actually .3, I am simply making a statement about the nature of probability.

Brandon9000 wrote:

My "error" as you call it, is to believe that if an event has a probability of .3, then, as it is repeated, the fraction of positive occurrences of the event, will approach .3, which is the definition of what a probability of .3 means.

On what basis do you get a probability of .3? Do you have a statistical analysis that supports this number?

Lets examine some "rogue states" that attempted to get WMD and see how many really have them?
Libya? NO
Iraq? NO
Iran? Probably NO at this point
Afghanistan under the Taliban? NO
N Korea? Probably YES, but unknown since they haven't tested.

Just listing those countries gives me a .2 probability, not a .3.


The problem Brandon is you pull numbers out of thin air and demand that we accept them as true. Like your continued claim that a WMD by a rogue state could kill a million or even a half million people. No evidence of that has EVER been supplied by you. Only speculation that ignores FACTS.

A small nuclear device smuggled into a major US city won't kill a half million people. It can't because the MOST damage is done in an air burst. A ground burst has less damage. No other WMD has ever been shown to have the capability to kill the quantities you keep claiming.

Since you have 2 degrees in Physics Brandon, perhaps you can supply the MATH to support your claim of .3 probability. Or how about the MATH to support your claim that a half million would die from WMD. Numbers don't lie Brandon so provide us with the numbers that brought you to .3 and to your half million figure. (Down from your previous claim on this site of millions.)

You claimed that we have to take Rogue states possible possession of WMD seriously. The problem with your argument Brandon is that in the case of Iraq the only SERIOUS action seems to be invasion by your assessment. How is it possible to settle for INSPECTIONS in Iran and N Korea then? Aren't you arguing that inspections are NOT taking it seriously? It defeats your entire argument.

Hypothetically, if we invaded a series of countries, each of which had a probability of .3 of having hidden WMD, failing to find it in the first country or the second does not imply that we will not find it in the 3rd. I am not saying that the probability in Iraq was actually .3, I am simply making a statement about the nature of probability.

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way, Brandon...

...the "particular logic" you are using with regard to "probability"...namely that since we did not find WMD in Iraq we have increased the probability that we will find them when we invade some other country..."

Frank, that was not what I said. I meant something quite different.

Let's say you find a dictatorship that once had WMD and claims to have eliminated them, but you consider there to be a probability of .3 that it is merely hiding them. You invade and find nothing. A year later, you find a country in a similar situation, with a .3 probability that it is concealing WMD. You invade this other country, but find nothing. Now a few years later, you find a third country in the same situation and invade....etc.

I am saying that if the probability is .3, eventually you will run into one that is hiding WMD from you. In fact you will do so 30% of the time.

I am certainly not saying that your success or failure to find WMD in one exerts influence over what you will find in the next one. You know I do have a couple of Physics degrees, and they do make us take probability and statistics courses before we get the diploma.

How about reading my posts before you answer them? I never said, and didn't mean that the probability was .3. I picked a number for the sake of a discussion about probabilistic events

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way, Brandon...

...the "particular logic" you are using with regard to "probability"...namely that since we did not find WMD in Iraq we have increased the probability that we will find them when we invade some other country..."

Frank, that was not what I said. I meant something quite different.

Let's say you find a dictatorship that once had WMD and claims to have eliminated them, but you consider there to be a probability of .3 that it is merely hiding them. You invade and find nothing. A year later, you find a country in a similar situation, with a .3 probability that it is concealing WMD. You invade this other country, but find nothing. Now a few years later, you find a third country in the same situation and invade....etc.

I am saying that if the probability is .3, eventually you will run into one that is hiding WMD from you. In fact you will do so 30% of the time.

I am certainly not saying that your success or failure to find WMD in one exerts influence over what you will find in the next one. You know I do have a couple of Physics degrees, and they do make us take probability and statistics courses before we get the diploma.

I DID read you Brandon. Looks to me like you pulled the number out of your *****.
You picked a number LARGE enough to make it reasonable sounding in your invasion argument. The problem with your statistical analysis Brandon is that you are GUARANTEED to be WRONG 70% of the time even at your inflated number. The odds for each invasion are 70% that you are WRONG. You need to get to a LARGE number of invasions to reach your 30% figure in the overall WMD to invasion ratio. Your .3 number has NO real relation to WMD and countries. It is a selective number to give your argument some validity where it has none.

Quote:

How about reading my posts before you answer them? I never said, and didn't mean that the probability was .3. I picked a number for the sake of a discussion about probabilistic events

Just as Parados says, you picked the number out of thin air. Brandon, you are promoting a flat earth theory. You would be better off saying uncle.

Chrissee wrote:

Quote:

How about reading my posts before you answer them? I never said, and didn't mean that the probability was .3. I picked a number for the sake of a discussion about probabilistic events

Just as Parados says, you picked the number out of thin air. Brandon, you are promoting a flat earth theory. You would be better off saying uncle.

I never implied that it was anything other than an arbitrary number for a math discussion. Another red herring from Chrissee.

Quick statistical question for you Brandon. What is the minumum number of invasions needed to give you a 95% probability of meeting your 30% figure assuming all countries you invade have the 30% probability.

ROFLBO waiting for Brandon to answer this one.....

give us the minimum for 80% then too.. :wink:

Are you honestly suggesting that we invade this many countries?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

Quote:

How about reading my posts before you answer them? I never said, and didn't mean that the probability was .3. I picked a number for the sake of a discussion about probabilistic events

Just as Parados says, you picked the number out of thin air. Brandon, you are promoting a flat earth theory. You would be better off saying uncle.

I never implied that it was anything other than an arbitrary number for a math discussion. Another red herring from Chrissee.

And you're also saying that this entire probability discussion is another red herring by you. If you want a discussion of probability and statistics, you should move it to the riddles or science forum. If you want a discussion of political policy (which is what this thread was originally about) then you should ditch the hypotheticals and talk about real numbers.