Should taking at least one probability and statistics course be required...
 

in high-school? There are so many things that you cannot understand without some knowledge of probability and statistics so shouldn’t a basic probability and statistics course be required learning before students can graduate high-school?

In my probability and statistics course I learned that I can make anything look like anything and that statistics can't be trusted.

So....yes.

Hell YES!

I'm constantly amazed by seemingly bright people who use anecdotal evidence to draw broad, sweeping conclusions.

Here's one I heard recently. "My sister had too many ultrasounds during her pregnancy, so the baby was born with only one testicle!"

But that would take the fun out of our "debates" here if we had to introduce cold logic.

Emotion is so much more entertaining.

Along with probability and statistics, a course in critical thinking and the scientific method would be wonderful.

Mike

Well, scientific method might just eliminate Creationism as a science.

There might be some who would strongly disagree.

Heck, the probability and statistics course would make a huge dent in Creationism as most of the proponents demonstrate a total lack of knowledge in those areas when it comes to old "evolution is impossible and I have the math to prove it" arguments... :>)

Mike

This thread has taken an interesting turn to include creationism and evolution. Personally, I think some knowledge of the basics of probability would only work against evolution. Let me dig up one of my old posts and maybe someone can point out my fallacious reasoning.


If the probability of flipping a coin and getting heads is 1/2, then the probability of flipping the coin twice in a row and getting heads both times is (1/2)^2 = 1/4 and the probability off getting heads three times in a row is (1/2)^3 = 1/8 and so on. Similarly, if after the first living organism sprang into life the probability of it surviving each mutation was 99/100, then the probability of it surviving the first 1000 mutations would be (99/100)^1000 = 0.000043171.

In other words, the idea that an organism would spontaneously spring to life and survive the first 1000 mutations without any help is very unlikely.

I think the far more interesting topic in this thread is the fact that Moses' nephew has only 1 ball.

Himmueller, had something similar

and Geuring, had nothing, at all...

Whoever said "statistics don't lie" had no clue whatsoever.

I've taken several of these types of courses in college and every time I develop less respect and more contempt for the discipline and the people who specialize in it.

Kids are dishonest enough, no sense providing them with formal training in dishonesty ;)

No, Sam Clements stole paraphased Voltaire:

"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics!"

But seriously, the problem is not statastics, it is the misuse of statistics.

Just remember that in a recent poll of Democrats who are likely to vote, 94% said they hated Bush and the rest are in Jail...

Unless there were an enormously large number of events.

It's like a chimp sitting at a typewriter and randomly hitting keys and inadvertantly typing the Gettysburg Address. With enough chimps and enough typewriters, it will happen.

Statistics don't lie, people lie. As long as you use the right methodology the results will be mathematically valid.



http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/8...sis10wd.th.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/9...sis24lj.th.jpg


http://img342.imageshack.us/img342/1...mple0vz.th.jpg (Specific example of hypothesis testing)

What do you mean by "enormously large number of events"? An enormous number of organisms spontaneously springing to life?

It is reasonable to consider that the conditions that permitted formation of the first single cell organism may have allowed the formation of countless others. It is not mathematically necessary for the very first cell created to survive millions of mutations.

Don't confuse the emotional ones! A book by Marilyn vos Savant dealing with people's perception of probability and statistics is titled "The Power of Logical Thinking" was extremly good. Which leads me to think that in evolution, the variables are not all known, so that computing a simple answer as to the probaility of "life" is not going to be very accurate.

And there might be a staggeringly low possibility that evolution, as it has occurred, might occur... but it it is still statistically possible.

You can't disprove evolution with probability. All you can prove is that it might be unlikely to happen again.

Is that what the theory says? That there were countless organism randomly springing to life?

There are only two possible outcomes for the organism after each mutation - it either survives or it dies. Nothing unique about that type of experiment.

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/984...rimenta0xm.jpg

Yes, when conditions are right. Exactly what happen with life now. Even Einstein had difficulty with this, but after a lot of thought, he came around to it. Probability will show that in the universe there have been millions or millions of the "right time and place" for life to form. And that these time periods could last for millions of our years. So... nothing in probability theory says life is spontaneously impossible or actually improbable.

nine_one_4 wrote:
There are only two possible outcomes for the organism after each mutation - it either survives or it dies.


Sorry, this is not true for each mutation. There are more results possible. We might argue about the very first one, but not any of the remaining mutations. What are your exact "survival" parameters? Unless defined, we cannot propose there are only two results possible.

Amazing how foolish you people are. I almost feel sorry for you. God is long-suffering for the sake of you idiots - I just wish he would wrap it up.

Probably someone has proposed that. I'm just showing how an extraordinarily large number of events can lead to a significant number of "unlikely" events.

nine_one_4 wrote:
Should taking at least one probability and statistics course be required...

Well? Passing a test or course does not guarantee you understood it! I thought we were expounding on the benefits of logical and critical thinking. I see we have digressed into fairy tale land.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1150844257.jpg

Reminds me of that great exchange in A Fish Called Wanda.

Otto: "Don't call me stupid! I'm NOT stupid! Do stupid people read PHILOSOPHY?"

Wanda: "Yes, Otto, they do. They just don't understand it.

LOL!!!

Since we digressed to disproving evolution...

http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/

I believe in God and probability. Doesn't mean evolution didn't happen, and you can talk/post 'till you're blue in the face but you can't disprove evolution any more than you can prove (prove = scientific meaning) Creation.

Creationism means God had "Hands on".

Evolution means "Let's see what happens when I let go of the controls".

Interference with the process vs. non-intervention.

How about that for an idea? Lets everyone into the tent.

I've posted the link below before, but it is relevant yet again. This link does a commendable job in explaining the "probabilities" associated with abiogenesis. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, so all of you trying to disprove the theory of evolution by showing the improbability of abiogenesis are barking up the wrong tree.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

IROC:

Thanks for the post. Very interesting and a considerable number of references.

Yeah, talkorigins is a gold mine. Probably one of the best sites on the internet IMO. I would implore anyone who has doubts about the theory of evolution to spend some time on that site.

Mike

Frankly, the Evolution vs. Creationism would puzzle Lemuel Gulliver just like the "Big Endians" and the "Little Indians" war over the proper end to break on a boiled egg.

Much ado about nothing.

i dated a girl who worked for a large drug co. that promoted cardiazem. she constantly traveled all over the country to structure and gather the stats. her job was to keep ongoing studiy statistics and present them for the package inserts. one weekend, on a friday, she announced that we certainly could not go out as hse had to "redo" the study because one of the participants had died. i asked her if her BSN had included a stats course. "NO, I hate statistics"

lol, but true. after the co. lost cardiazem, the co. folded, offered her a position in canada they knew she would not take, and laid her off.

a similar situation was covered on 60 MINUTES years ago.

The more interesting schnerio is if a chimp actually did type the Gettysberg address but in ancient hebrew not kings english - the chances are pretty much the same (like 1x10^29). Or better yet, how about that chimp typing it all correct until the last period which he puts in a ? instead.

The odds are the same pretty much. I think there is more of a chance for self-replicating molecules...


As for the question, not only stats but higher math and logic as well.

Teaching statistics in HS would put a big dent in lottery income.... :D

The statistics that is most relevant for graduating HS students could be taught in a few days. Things like "The chances for a random event happening are not greater if the event hasn't occurred in a while." People who haven't had statistics commonly think that a random event is "due" if it hasn't happened in a while i.e. if you throw a die 5 times and you don't get a "6" that somehow you are more likely to get a "6" on the next throw than it was on the very first one. (In reality, it all the throws have a 1:6 chance of getting a "6".)

They ought to teach some sort of critical thinking to help people see through misleading advertising, slanted news and political statements.
-Chris