IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags probability

Reply
Old 28th February 2011, 04:51 PM   #201
Alan
Illuminator
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,714
And add just one to that "random-looking" sequence and that 101-long sequence is less likely to occur than 100 heads. Woahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Alan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 05:16 PM   #202
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
And add just one to that "random-looking" sequence and that 101-long sequence is less likely to occur than 100 heads. Woahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Here's an interesting question: How long a streak would allow us to judge the fairness of the coin-flips?

Theoretically, you could never say it wasn't an honest coin, as long as the string of results is potentially infinite.

By the same token, a given Diaconis machine might actually be producing random results, over an extremely long timespan, and we'd just never be able to tell.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 05:44 PM   #203
joller
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
So I can't say that there is literally a zero chance, not even 1/1-nonillionth of a chance, that real coin-flippers would somehow sabotage extremely long streaks, were they to occur.
Are the coin flippers aware of the series?
i.e. it has to be the same coin flipper for all 100 flips right?
Or would you accept 10 coin flippers doing a single flip each in order, not aware of the others results (only the score keeper is).
I.e. is this a blind test, doble blind test, or not a blind test at all>

It seems you'd only accept a single coin flipper, aware of the whole series.

How I see the bias would work: the real-life coin flips are non-random, to a small extent.
Toss a coin 200 times and see what stats you get.
Even if you get close to 50-50, not everyone tosses the coin the same way, so you'd need a 'toin coss' protocol.
The 50-50 result, which i think was partially your point with the smooth spaces earlier, is quite unlikely, probabilistically, even though it's the most likely result.
Throw 2 d-6 dice. 7 is the most likely result, but it's less likely than ie. '6 or 8' together.

How do I place the coin before the toss? Where is it placed, its it always heads-up before the toss? How high do I toss it? Do I catch it or let if fall? do we have a minimum amount of revolutions to qualify for the test?

It would be interesting to ask some experienced illusionists how much they can bias a coin toss with a random, not-pre-selected and not wighed coin.

If they can acheive a good result (meaning strong bias), then I think it is fair to assume that a flipper aware of the series might subconciously be able to influence the toss to break a long series.

How big is his chance to influence it, and if he would influence it reliably enough to break the series reliably is difficult to answer due to the very small probability he would have a chance to break a 99 long series in the first place.
joller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 05:45 PM   #204
hodgy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,017
Just a side note - noting Piggy's error that we would by definition a need a zillion years of coin flips to get the 100 heads. The 100 heads sequence is just as likely to occur on the first 100 flips as on the zillionth zillionth.
__________________
Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
hodgy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 06:01 PM   #205
joller
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by hodgy View Post
Just a side note - noting Piggy's error that we would by definition a need a zillion years of coin flips to get the 100 heads. The 100 heads sequence is just as likely to occur on the first 100 flips as on the zillionth zillionth.
You are correct, but on average we'll only hit our pre-determined sequence in half a zillion years.

A typical scenario, that deals with data more random than your average coin toss - finding encryption keys through a brute force attack.
Say you have an encrypted message and you know the plaintext (the message before encryption). Therefore you can test all 2^64 individual key in the following manner.
Select a key.
Encrypt the message with your key.
Check if the encrypted message is equal to the original encrypted text you were given.
Repeat till you find the key.

It turns out you're very lucky if you get the key in say around the 25% of the tested keyspace (and usually around the 50% mark, and of course, unlucky around 75% mark) even though as you correctly stated, the chances of you selecting the correct key (randomly) for the first attempt are the same as for every other attempt (assuming perfect randomness - and results of encryption are anb extremely good approximation of pure randomness, though we can do even better than that)

EDIT: if I remember correctly, we'd be dealing with a normal distribution here, and 68% of results fall within a standard deviation of the mean. The mean here will be 50% of the exhaustive keyspace search.

The standard deviation for a series of 100 coin tosses is 5, so if the coin is fair and the toss truly random, 68% of results will be 45-55, a probability of hitting 50, the most likely result, is below 8 percent.

Last edited by joller; 28th February 2011 at 06:30 PM.
joller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 06:11 PM   #206
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by joller View Post
Are the coin flippers aware of the series?
i.e. it has to be the same coin flipper for all 100 flips right?
Or would you accept 10 coin flippers doing a single flip each in order, not aware of the others results (only the score keeper is).
I.e. is this a blind test, doble blind test, or not a blind test at all>

It seems you'd only accept a single coin flipper, aware of the whole series.
Yeah, I was thinking about that this morning. You'd have to posit ESP, I suppose, if the flipper couldn't see the results, and I'm not willing to go that far, although I've been on threads with skeptics who will.

Or I don't know, maybe there is some strange-but-not-provably-physically-impossible scenario out there. When you're talking about "no chance" it gets real dicey to say.

But for my money, no, I can't see a way around that.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 06:15 PM   #207
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by joller View Post
It would be interesting to ask some experienced illusionists how much they can bias a coin toss with a random, not-pre-selected and not wighed coin.

If they can acheive a good result (meaning strong bias), then I think it is fair to assume that a flipper aware of the series might subconciously be able to influence the toss to break a long series.
I believe the article on the Diaconis machine talked about that, but I believe the illusion was to "flip" the coin so it spun and wobbled while remaining face up or down, and the magician made the choice of heads or tails between grabbing the coin and laying it on his arm.

I don't know how good a person could get at real flips, but I'd bet it could be mastered with sufficient practice.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 06:20 PM   #208
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by hodgy View Post
Just a side note - noting Piggy's error that we would by definition a need a zillion years of coin flips to get the 100 heads. The 100 heads sequence is just as likely to occur on the first 100 flips as on the zillionth zillionth.
That's true, but it's not just as likely to occur on the first 100 flips as it is somewhere between the zillionth and the zillion zillionth.

Anyway, no, that's not what I'm saying -- in fact, if the system is potentially infinite, then if you look at it theoretically there's literally no limit (as long as you have a finite number of flips) to the streak from flip 1 forward that would be allowed in a random results space which, at some scale, evenly balanced heads and tails without forming regular patterns.

No matter how large your "blob" got, you could just say it's a tiny detail in a much larger arrangement.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:15 PM   #209
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Let's imagine flipping a coin some extremely high number of times. A number that no one is likely to ever do, but this thread seems hypothetical anyway.

If a coin were flipped a billion times, what's the largest consecutive run of heads you'd statistically expect? And how would you make that calculation?

Alternately, if I wanted to know how likely a run of consecutive heads was in certain numbers of throws, I'd divide the number of possible sequences with that many heads by the total number of possible sequences.

Let's say a coin is flipped a billion times. There should be 2^billion possible sequences. How many would have 100 consecutive heads?



Or am I missing the entire point of the thread? I'm new here, and all.
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:11 PM   #210
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
Some of the discussion in this topic reminded me of this Dilbert strip.

http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip...2318.strip.gif
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:42 PM   #211
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
It's not that, really. It's just that I can't tell you that there is not even 1/1-nonillionth of a chance that real human beings flipping real coins would not somehow unconsciously kill the streak if it lasted long enough.

I can tell you that I find the notion pretty far-fetched.

But I can't tell you that there's not some hyper-astronomical chance that it might actually turn out to be true.
Why do you think the real human being flipping a real coin would somehow unconsciously kill or sabotage a streak (that would have gotten heads) rather than continue or perpetuate a streak (that would have gotten tails)?

If someone can influence the coin flip somehow unconsciously, and they have a long sting of heads going, what makes you think they would somehow unconsciously influence the flip to come up tails and end the streak rather than somehow unconsciously influence the flip to come up heads and continue the streak?
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 03:10 AM   #212
Thabiguy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Here's an interesting question: How long a streak would allow us to judge the fairness of the coin-flips?

Theoretically, you could never say it wasn't an honest coin, as long as the string of results is potentially infinite.
Of course you could say that. You couldn't say that with zero chance of being wrong, but you could say that with arbitrarily low chance of being wrong.

Which happens to be the very best degree of confidence available. If people only said things with zero chance of being wrong, it would be a silent world.
Thabiguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 03:01 PM   #213
Mobyseven
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
It's not that, really. It's just that I can't tell you that there is not even 1/1-nonillionth of a chance that real human beings flipping real coins would not somehow unconsciously kill the streak if it lasted long enough.
I'm sorry, but this really is just silly.

Even if, even if there was some unconscious kill switch in our brains that implores us to sabotage the streak -- even in that case, we've still got a non-zero probability of getting a hundred heads. Because at each step of the way the coin still needs to be flipped.

The psychological state of the person is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant as it pertains to the question of possibility. The system we are dealing with in reality is much larger than just the person; despite the best of intentions, the person can still succeed.

Of course, it's possible that the person might start to cheat...but provided they're still actually flipping the coin (as is required) they have a non-zero probability that their cheat will fail (I.e. the coin will keep landing heads).

So no: not even in this bizarre fantasy world of yours is there ever zero probability of getting a run of a hundred heads.
Mobyseven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2011, 05:20 PM   #214
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Why do you think the real human being flipping a real coin would somehow unconsciously kill or sabotage a streak (that would have gotten heads) rather than continue or perpetuate a streak (that would have gotten tails)?
I have no clue. How in the world would I know the ins and outs of something that has such a small chance of being true?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2011, 05:21 PM   #215
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Thabiguy View Post
Of course you could say that. You couldn't say that with zero chance of being wrong, but you could say that with arbitrarily low chance of being wrong.

Which happens to be the very best degree of confidence available. If people only said things with zero chance of being wrong, it would be a silent world.
Perhaps, but regardless, this thread has pretty consistently been about zero-chances, not absurdly small chances.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2011, 05:33 PM   #216
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
Let's imagine flipping a coin some extremely high number of times. A number that no one is likely to ever do, but this thread seems hypothetical anyway.

If a coin were flipped a billion times, what's the largest consecutive run of heads you'd statistically expect? And how would you make that calculation?

Alternately, if I wanted to know how likely a run of consecutive heads was in certain numbers of throws, I'd divide the number of possible sequences with that many heads by the total number of possible sequences.

Let's say a coin is flipped a billion times. There should be 2^billion possible sequences. How many would have 100 consecutive heads?



Or am I missing the entire point of the thread? I'm new here, and all.
There's a paper linked on the parent thread, btw, that discusses the number of flips needed to make certain streaks likely. I believe it's somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 flips to make a streak of 10 likely.

I suppose that would mean figuring out the point where more than half of all such runs would contain a streak of that length.

But then you get back to the point someone made just upthread, that if you were to do a sufficient number of very long series of coin flips, some of them would show streaks at the beginning, others at the middle, others at the end.

There was a Radio Lab episode very recently that discussed coin tosses. As part of their experiment, the RL guys flipped a streak of 7 very early in (or perhaps at the start of, it's hard to tell) a run of 100.

Later, they talked to a statistician and said they flipped 7 heads, and he gave them the very long odds. But when they mentioned they'd made a total of 100 flips, he said, oh, that means it's only about 1 in 6.

So it goes from a long shot to about like throwing a dart at a calendar and hitting a Tuesday, based on what they did after making the streak.

Which makes me think of a scenario like, suppose me and my brother-in-law forgot who owed who 20 bucks, so we agree to flip a coin 10 times and bet $2 on each flip.

Well, we decide that he flips, he takes heads, and he gets 10 out of 10 heads.

I say, "Dude, that's gotta be a rigged coin", and he says, "No, you see, I always intended to flip this coin another 2,990 times, which is what I'm about to do, so this isn't unusual at all."

So I say, well, ok, and take off, but then I realize I left my smokes inside and I go back in and the guy's popped open a beer and is sitting with his feet up watching TV.

I say, "You lying SOB, you never intended to make those 2,900 flips... you were cheating me, after all!"

__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2011, 05:36 PM   #217
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Mobyseven View Post
I'm sorry, but this really is just silly.

Even if, even if there was some unconscious kill switch in our brains that implores us to sabotage the streak -- even in that case, we've still got a non-zero probability of getting a hundred heads. Because at each step of the way the coin still needs to be flipped.

The psychological state of the person is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant as it pertains to the question of possibility. The system we are dealing with in reality is much larger than just the person; despite the best of intentions, the person can still succeed.

Of course, it's possible that the person might start to cheat...but provided they're still actually flipping the coin (as is required) they have a non-zero probability that their cheat will fail (I.e. the coin will keep landing heads).

So no: not even in this bizarre fantasy world of yours is there ever zero probability of getting a run of a hundred heads.
Very nice. Can't argue with that.

To get the zero we've got to go supernatural, and I just can't go there.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2011, 06:57 PM   #218
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
To get the zero we've got to go supernatural, and I just can't go there.
So if someone defies odds of better than 1 in a million (or perhaps even 1 in a billion) and wins the JREF Challenge, would you conclude that something paranormal happened, or that s/he just got lucky?
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2011, 09:22 PM   #219
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
So if someone defies odds of better than 1 in a million (or perhaps even 1 in a billion) and wins the JREF Challenge, would you conclude that something paranormal happened, or that s/he just got lucky?
Since there is no scientific basis or demonstration of any such thing as "paranormal," I would look for other scientific explanations -- including the occurrence of an unlikely probability.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2011, 01:24 AM   #220
Mobyseven
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
So if someone defies odds of better than 1 in a million (or perhaps even 1 in a billion) and wins the JREF Challenge, would you conclude that something paranormal happened, or that s/he just got lucky?
Personally? I'd sit up and take notice, but I'd wait for reproducibility before changing my mind on anything.
Mobyseven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2011, 07:56 AM   #221
Thabiguy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
So if someone defies odds of better than 1 in a million (or perhaps even 1 in a billion) and wins the JREF Challenge, would you conclude that something paranormal happened, or that s/he just got lucky?
That's actually an interesting question, but wouldn't it be better to open a new thread where this could be discussed at length, rather than derailing this one?
Thabiguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2011, 10:59 AM   #222
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Thabiguy View Post
That's actually an interesting question, but wouldn't it be better to open a new thread where this could be discussed at length, rather than derailing this one?
I'm not sure it's a derail. I think everyone here, including Piggy, now accepts the fact that there are no "impossible" coin sequences. But how does that fact relate to the way we view the world? For example, if someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by, say, correctly naming the first five cards drawn from a deck of cards lying face down, will the prevailing attitude here be that the paranormal has been demonstrated? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the first ten cards? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the entire deck?
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2011, 06:07 PM   #223
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
So if someone defies odds of better than 1 in a million (or perhaps even 1 in a billion) and wins the JREF Challenge, would you conclude that something paranormal happened, or that s/he just got lucky?
Damned if I know. It would depend on what happened.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2011, 06:18 PM   #224
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
I'm not sure it's a derail. I think everyone here, including Piggy, now accepts the fact that there are no "impossible" coin sequences. But how does that fact relate to the way we view the world? For example, if someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by, say, correctly naming the first five cards drawn from a deck of cards lying face down, will the prevailing attitude here be that the paranormal has been demonstrated? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the first ten cards? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the entire deck?
So if something occurs that is not expected or understood, you think we should attribute it to "paranormal" -- whatever that's supposed to mean?
I prefer to look for logical and scientific explanations.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2011, 06:20 PM   #225
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
So if something occurs that is not expected or understood, you think we should attribute it to "paranormal" -- whatever that's supposed to mean?
I prefer to look for logical and scientific explanations.
Fine, but if you can't find any logical and scientific explanation, do you conclude that the paranormal exists or that s/he just got lucky?
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2011, 08:10 PM   #226
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Fine, but if you can't find any logical and scientific explanation, do you conclude that the paranormal exists or that s/he just got lucky?
What does it mean to say that the paranormal exists?
Paranormal is used to describe a wide variety of stuff like tree spirits, mind reading, angels, witches and gods. What do you mean?
If an unlikely occurrence happens, what paranormal entity is responsible? The probability fairy?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 01:35 AM   #227
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
I'm not sure it's a derail. I think everyone here, including Piggy, now accepts the fact that there are no "impossible" coin sequences. But how does that fact relate to the way we view the world? For example, if someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by, say, correctly naming the first five cards drawn from a deck of cards lying face down, will the prevailing attitude here be that the paranormal has been demonstrated? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the first ten cards? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the entire deck?
I would say that we've got a demonstration that it's likely that something is going on, and worth further study. Of course it's possible that he or she got lucky, but it's also possible that the world behaves differently than our current understanding suggests. A good place to begin scientific exploration of the phenomenon.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 04:52 AM   #228
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
But how does that fact relate to the way we view the world? For example, if someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by, say, correctly naming the first five cards drawn from a deck of cards lying face down, will the prevailing attitude here be that the paranormal has been demonstrated? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the first ten cards? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the entire deck?
If someone did that, the subsequent scientific studies would certainly be followed with interest.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 05:29 AM   #229
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,924
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Here's an interesting question: How long a streak would allow us to judge the fairness of the coin-flips?
Yeah that sure is interesting... it's the OP of the month old thread that started this discussion... that you took part in!

Double Headed Coins and skepticism

From that thread's OP:

Originally Posted by Simon Bridge View Post
The idea is that I am tossing a coin and it keeps coming up heads - how many tosses before you conclude, reasonably, I'm cheating?
Sound familiar??
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 05:32 AM   #230
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,924
A human flipping 100 heads in a row = possible.

Piggy's theory that, at some arbitrary point in a human flipping streak, the odds of heads becomes zero = impossible.

Post all you want, this will still be true.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 07:29 AM   #231
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
What does it mean to say that the paranormal exists?
One or more phenomena exist that science does not currently explain.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Paranormal is used to describe a wide variety of stuff like tree spirits, mind reading, angels, witches and gods. What do you mean?
In the example that I gave, it would be an apparent case of clairvoyance; i.e., perception outside the five senses.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
If an unlikely occurrence happens, what paranormal entity is responsible? The probability fairy?
That's not the issue -- the issue is whether you would accept the paranormal as an explanation if the odds were sufficiently high against an event happening.
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 09:14 AM   #232
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
One or more phenomena exist that science does not currently explain.
If science cannot currently explain something, why would it be paranormal? Was the sun "paranormal" before science could explain its energy source? Was genetics "paranormal" before the discovery of DNA?

Quote:
In the example that I gave, it would be an apparent case of clairvoyance; i.e., perception outside the five senses.
If something like that existed it would have a mechanism, a medium and a cause/effect basis. It would be subject to scientific analysis. Why would it be "paranormal"? Again -- you have not defined paranormal!

Quote:
That's not the issue -- the issue is whether you would accept the paranormal as an explanation if the odds were sufficiently high against an event happening.
Causality has been demonstrated to be the only mode of behavior of the universe. The universe has also been demonstrated to behave utterly mathematically. Until you defined "paranormal" in a understandable manner -- so it can be tested within the context of scientific methods -- that question has no meaning.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 4th March 2011 at 09:15 AM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 10:29 AM   #233
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
If science cannot currently explain something, why would it be paranormal? Was the sun "paranormal" before science could explain its energy source? Was genetics "paranormal" before the discovery of DNA?


If something like that existed it would have a mechanism, a medium and a cause/effect basis. It would be subject to scientific analysis. Why would it be "paranormal"? Again -- you have not defined paranormal!


Causality has been demonstrated to be the only mode of behavior of the universe. The universe has also been demonstrated to behave utterly mathematically. Until you defined "paranormal" in a understandable manner -- so it can be tested within the context of scientific methods -- that question has no meaning.
Okay, so let's leave the word "paranormal" out of the following hypothetical: Someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by correctly naming the order of all 52 cards of a face-down deck. What would your explanation be for that success?
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2011, 08:31 AM   #234
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Okay, so let's leave the word "paranormal" out of the following hypothetical: Someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by correctly naming the order of all 52 cards of a face-down deck. What would your explanation be for that success?
The probability of such a thing happening are about 1/8*1067. Guessing 52 consecutive cards correctly would have a probability not unlike that of my atoms suddenly appearing on Mars (within the context of quantum theory).
The controls were not adequate. It was a trick!
If one were to claim some other explanation, one would have to demonstrate a mechanism and a causality.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 5th March 2011 at 08:47 AM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2011, 01:03 PM   #235
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
The probability of such a thing happening are about 1/8*1067. Guessing 52 consecutive cards correctly would have a probability not unlike that of my atoms suddenly appearing on Mars (within the context of quantum theory).
The controls were not adequate. It was a trick!
If one were to claim some other explanation, one would have to demonstrate a mechanism and a causality.
Okay, so even though it is theoretically possible for someone to correctly guess the order of a deck of cards, you wouldn't take seriously the idea that could happen by chance. We agree there, which I think may distinguish us from some others here, but why would you think it would have to be a trick? Don't you think a mechanism and a causality could ultimately be demonstrated, even though they are currently unknown?
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2011, 01:21 PM   #236
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Okay, so let's leave the word "paranormal" out of the following hypothetical: Someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by correctly naming the order of all 52 cards of a face-down deck. What would your explanation be for that success?
My explanation would be that he's a better magician than Randi expected him to be.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2011, 01:23 PM   #237
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
\ why would you think it would have to be a trick? Don't you think a mechanism and a causality could ultimately be demonstrated, even though they are currently unknown?
"A trick" is both a mechanism and a causality.

Given that we know that tricks exist, and we know that new tricks are invented, I think that "a new trick" is a likely and parsimonious explanation.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2011, 02:31 PM   #238
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Okay, so even though it is theoretically possible for someone to correctly guess the order of a deck of cards, you wouldn't take seriously the idea that could happen by chance. We agree there, which I think may distinguish us from some others here, but why would you think it would have to be a trick? Don't you think a mechanism and a causality could ultimately be demonstrated, even though they are currently unknown?
No -- other than a trick.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2011, 04:11 PM   #239
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
"A trick" is both a mechanism and a causality.

Given that we know that tricks exist, and we know that new tricks are invented, I think that "a new trick" is a likely and parsimonious explanation.
Except that the JREF has a vested interest in ensuring that the Challenge is not won by a trick.
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2011, 04:24 PM   #240
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Except that the JREF has a vested interest in ensuring that the Challenge is not won by a trick.
So? Madoff had a vested interest in ensuring that he was not suspected of running a Ponzi scheme. Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean that it will....
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.