I NEED SOMEONE WITH EXPERTISE IN PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS.

I think it's a red herring, Frank.

On his own terms, it's true enough -- but invasions should not take place on such flimsy pretenses (30% chance). Inspections should. Sanctions maybe. All-out invasions are an entirely different kettle of fish, for a number of reasons.

I will not quote you, Brandon...I intend to link the person to the start of our discussion.

Peace!

Why don't you all pose the mathematical question devoid of political meaning.

I have a good academic understanding of probability and statistics... but I don't need to get into another debate on the topic I am assuming you all are involved on. I would be happy to comment on a purely mathematical query.


((BTW Frank, I trust Brandon's math (much more than I trust his politics))

ebrown_p wrote:

Why don't you all pose the mathematical question devoid of political meaning.

I have a good academic understanding of probability and statistics... but I don't need to get into another debate on the topic I am assuming you all are involved on. I would be happy to comment on a purely mathematical query.


((BTW Frank, I trust Brandon's math (much more than I trust his politics))

Likewise.

If you toss a fair coin and fail to achieve heads, then you may get heads the next time. If you don't get heads on the second toss, nonetheless you can expect to get it about half the time. Not getting heads on one occasion doesn't mean that you might not get it the next toss. This is the molehill that has been blown up into a mountain.

As usual, you misunderstand. The theory is that if the general category of rogue states which have WMD programs are not treated seriously, then eventually a WMD will be used, at least for blackmail. 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. Even one such device used in a population center could exterminate a half million people. It would be one thing if you folks quoted my position accurately and then argued with it, but you almost always quote it inaccurately.

Quote:

As usual, you misunderstand. The theory is that if the general category of rogue states which have WMD programs are not treated seriously, then eventually a WMD will be used, at least for blackmail.

Okay...I'll buy the essence of this comment.

Rogue states have to be "treated seriously."

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.

Respectfully as possible, Brandon...there is not enough logic in that passage to fill a flea's ear...and flea's don't even have ears.

Whether we found WMD in Iraq or not will not influence whether we ever find them anywhere else.
This sentence fails every test of logic.

Quote:

That's what it means to talk about a probability.

C'mon! This has even less logic involved. You might just as well have said, "That's what it means to talk about homemade pasta."

Quote:

Even one such device used in a population center could exterminate a half million people.

Unfortunately...all too true. And my guess is that this will happen at some point...no matter whether this incredibly incompetent administration or one as incompetent as it handles matters...

...or an administration much, much, much more competent comes along.

I think that at this stage of our difficulties...a mega event is almost a certainty no matter what.

But I do agree that we have still got to do as much as possible to minimize its chances.

Quote:

It would be one thing if you folks quoted my position accurately and then argued with it, but you almost always quote it inaccurately.

Well...here I have cut and pasted your position...and your words.

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...

...reminds me of an old expression that seems very quint these days.

It use to go something like this: If you are afraid to fly because you think someone might bring a bomb on board your plane...consider that the chances against that happening are tens of millions to one against it happening. But if you don't even like those odds...simply pack up a bomb and bring it on board with you, because the chances of two people bringing a bomb on board any particular flight is tens of hundreds of millions to one against.

In any case...if your logic held up in any way...we probably should invade ten or twelve fifth world countries looking for WMD...Mali, Chad, Andorra, Benin, Eritria, Panama, Mauritania, etc. Then we would really improve our chances.

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 am 100% correct. My reference to statistics is elementary. I have said nothing more exotic than if you toss a fair coin and fail to get heads the first time, then you may get heads the second time, but, if not, you will likely get heads sooner or later. This is not really subject to debate, since it is so simple. Let me try to be even more explicit:

You invade a series of countries each of which has a chance of .3 of having WMD hidden. The first one may be clean the second one may be clean, etc., but if for each, the probability is really .3 of hidden WMD, then you should, from time to time, encounter countries for which the proposition is true - WMD are hidden. As the number of invaded countries approaches infinity, the fraction you have found with hidden WMD approaches .3.

Therefore, if we are confronted every few years with countries which have a probability about that large of having hidden WMD, it is to be expected that even if the first, second, and third turn out to be clean when we get in, some of them will not be clean.

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

Frank,

If you agree with Brandon's statement about the fair coin, then we can be done with the Mathematics of your argument.

Arguing about the what the argument is isn't any fun.

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

As usual, you misunderstand....No politics...just some supposed logic and probability...and a charge that both the logic and the probability are defective.

I am saying many different things here, but this thread was specifically to dispute the probability issue, on which I have been consistent and correct throughout. I am beggining to resent having to defend a subject in which I have formal qualifications to amateurs. Let's get on with it and not drag this out indefinitely.

Let's take it out of the realm of politics.

Some people that swim in the ocean drown.

Hypothetically - lets say you have a 30% chance of drowning.
therefore if you swim in the ocean enough eventually you will drown.


Would you use the hypothetical as a reason to not go swimming?