Comments on: How to Think Critically III: Randomness http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:10:17 +0000 By: Freeyourmind http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25825 Freeyourmind Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:18:56 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25825 Excellent post. I just wanted to mention another now famous superstition and that's the "Madden Curse". For going on 8 years now (possibly 9), the NFL player who is on the cover of the Madden Football videogame has gotten injured that same year. It's so well known among sports fans that when I was doing my fantasy football draft last year, people were actually letting Shaun Alexander (at the time MVP and TD record holder) slip in the draft because he was on the cover at the time and they were worried. Even funnier, he did infact get injured last year and had a terrible year compared to his prior season. Excellent post. I just wanted to mention another now famous superstition and that's the "Madden Curse". For going on 8 years now (possibly 9), the NFL player who is on the cover of the Madden Football videogame has gotten injured that same year. It's so well known among sports fans that when I was doing my fantasy football draft last year, people were actually letting Shaun Alexander (at the time MVP and TD record holder) slip in the draft because he was on the cover at the time and they were worried.

Even funnier, he did infact get injured last year and had a terrible year compared to his prior season.

]]> By: valhar2000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25824 valhar2000 Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:07:59 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25824 <blockquote>When they do exploratory post hoc analyses, these should be done with caution.</blockquote> They should treat any "results" they find with skepticism, and not accept them until they can replaicate them in another, independent run of measurements. Only people who have ahd the scientific method drilled into them remember to do this, I'm afraid.

When they do exploratory post hoc analyses, these should be done with caution.

They should treat any "results" they find with skepticism, and not accept them until they can replaicate them in another, independent run of measurements. Only people who have ahd the scientific method drilled into them remember to do this, I'm afraid.

]]> By: tommy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25822 tommy Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:18:53 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25822 I just wanted to leave another comment, thank you so much for actually using your intellects in such a wonderful way to help people understand this stuff, it is totally awesome and really makes for a brighter outlook on things. This goes for the whole site and also Ebon Musings. Excellent stuff. I just wanted to leave another comment, thank you so much for actually using your intellects in such a wonderful way to help people understand this stuff, it is totally awesome and really makes for a brighter outlook on things. This goes for the whole site and also Ebon Musings. Excellent stuff.

]]> By: Archi Medez http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25816 Archi Medez Sun, 29 Jul 2007 04:49:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25816 I analyzed that sample stream of 1s and 0s on my stats program. There was no significant autocorrelation for a 95% confidence interval with the analysis extended to include 16 lags. Interestingly, there was at lag 1 a small negative correlation that approached the lower bound of the confidence interval. In other words, there is slightly more alternation than clustering at lag 1 in this sample, though not enough to reach significance. This is interesting because, with a large enough sample, and a large enough number of lags included in the analysis, there are inevitably going to be some cases where the correlation is statistically significant. Such findings would probably be spurious, of course, and would probably not be replicated with sufficient relative frequency, if in fact these assumptions about the randomness of the radioactive decay process hold true. The fact that such spurious correlations can occur also highlights the need for scientists to state their predictions, based on theory, in advance of collecting and reporting results. When they do exploratory post hoc analyses, these should be done with caution. One can see, though, how some people like Rupert Sheldrake could make selective use of such phenomena. I analyzed that sample stream of 1s and 0s on my stats program. There was no significant autocorrelation for a 95% confidence interval with the analysis extended to include 16 lags. Interestingly, there was at lag 1 a small negative correlation that approached the lower bound of the confidence interval. In other words, there is slightly more alternation than clustering at lag 1 in this sample, though not enough to reach significance. This is interesting because, with a large enough sample, and a large enough number of lags included in the analysis, there are inevitably going to be some cases where the correlation is statistically significant. Such findings would probably be spurious, of course, and would probably not be replicated with sufficient relative frequency, if in fact these assumptions about the randomness of the radioactive decay process hold true. The fact that such spurious correlations can occur also highlights the need for scientists to state their predictions, based on theory, in advance of collecting and reporting results. When they do exploratory post hoc analyses, these should be done with caution.

One can see, though, how some people like Rupert Sheldrake could make selective use of such phenomena.

]]> By: javaman http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25815 javaman Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:04:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25815 Wow! excellent insight,lucid teaching, give us more. Wow! excellent insight,lucid teaching, give us more.

]]> By: tommy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25814 tommy Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:26:33 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/how-to-think-critically-iii.html#comment-25814 Ebonmuse, this is an EXCEPTIONAL article you just wrote. I have been trying to describe this to others, but until now the only terms I had seen used were "false positive on Agency detection" and somesuch. Thank you for a simpler article, I look forward to sharing this with friends and family. Ebonmuse, this is an EXCEPTIONAL article you just wrote. I have been trying to describe this to others, but until now the only terms I had seen used were "false positive on Agency detection" and somesuch. Thank you for a simpler article, I look forward to sharing this with friends and family.

]]>