rationalskepticism.org

Thommo wrote:

blue triangle wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Fenrir wrote:You'd do a lot better if you didn't wave around ignorance of probability quite so freely.

You only have one bible to sample. You can only sample it once.

The probability of rolling 6 sixes in a row is exactly the same as that if rolling any other specific combination, say 155263 or 443614.

Funnily enough your claims for god are exactly the opposite to the arguments used by the "probability of reality is 1 in a really big number therefore god" crowd.

Even funnier both arguments are equally fallacious.

If I understand correctly, among the many errors BT makes is concluding from the (correct) premise that you are more likely to pick the one red ball out of nine in ten tries than in one, that it is less probable for the first ball you pull out to be red than for the tenth one. In each case the odds are 1/9.

I agree. What the fuck are you guys trying to pin on me now?

blue triangle wrote:I said that if you run a large number of trials with different texts, you would expect a clustering of hits at around verse 90000.

blue triangle wrote:As for your second assertion, using the binomial formula, I reckon the following odds for hitting 31415 in 20000 verses, 40000 verses, 60000 verses, etc, up to 200000 verses

p (20000) = 0.176
p (40000) = 0.283
p (60000) = 0.341
p (80000) = 0.365
p (100000) = 0.366
p (120000) = 0.353
p (140000) = 0.330
p (160000) = 0.303
p (180000) = 0.273
p (200000) = 0.244

The maximum probability is at just over 90000 verses in. In other words there is a gentle distribution curve with the peak there (and a positive skew, as expected when the minimum is zero and the maximum infinity). So I have to insist you're wrong there. In other words, if you tested text after text you would see that there would indeed be a clustering of hits at around 90000 words (assuming you had texts that long). It's more gentle than I expected, mind you.

I don't see what's to pin. He accurately described a mistake that's been made, repeated and elaborated upon.

I'm *hoping* that one of your later posts was an acknowledgement that this mistake had been identified.