[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 39 KB, 500x413, 1310760873389.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397152 No.3397152 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.3397158

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

>> No.3397163

Be cool. It's probably a book for junior-high kids.

>> No.3397165
File: 318 KB, 704x672, 1310761841033.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397165

>> No.3397169

well kids, that's how statistics work! amazing.

>> No.3397170

Interdasting fact:
scientists thing that a
person is never more
than 1 foot away from
a damn dirty ape at
any given time!

>> No.3397173
File: 25 KB, 640x430, big_spider.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397173

Why do birds suddenly appear everytime you are near?

>> No.3397175

>>3397170
There aren't enough to get that number, even making the same error the book does.

>> No.3397176
File: 3 KB, 126x113, 1305406853444.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397176

good luck ISS

>> No.3397181

>>3397152
that's a fucking statistics book, and we all know those are full of shit 95% of the time

>> No.3397186

>>3397181
>statistics
>full of shit

quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics would like to have a word with you

>> No.3397198

>>3397175
>>3397175
there's like 7 billion apes on this planet.

>> No.3397200

>>3397152
That's because you have janitors as opposed to house keepers that don't let it fall into such case.

>> No.3397206

>>3397186
>>3397181 did say 95% of the time. QM and the like fall under the 5%

>> No.3397214

what if you're swimming in the ocean? i'd have thrown that book in the garbage by now.

>> No.3397215

I hate when people talk about "scientists" in the third-person. As much as I understand being a scientist is a profession and it requires a particular position towards knowledge, as far as I know, everyone is a potential scientist. Talking like "scientist says" makes it look like scientists are illuminated people, far away with books and knowledge that they only let it slip to the layman because they want to.

>> No.3397222

>>3397215
>everyone is a potential scientist

no. you have to have a bachelors and a masters (and or phd) for start, THEN you must be involved with some research and have published papers.

>> No.3397219

>interesting fact, we can test this

>hypothesis: there are no spiders within 3 feet of me
>test: go to middle of room and look every direction 3 feet
>data: there were ~0 spiders within a 3 foot radius
>conclusion: theory is incorrect

>> No.3397218

>"Interesting Fact" box to the side
>exclamation point
High school book detected

>> No.3397232
File: 237 KB, 800x533, angry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3397232

i'm freaking out and getting creepy crawly feelings on my legs now

FUCK YOU OP

>> No.3397243

>>3397215
ah, the authority of science.

no one here believes in that crap.
however no one here believes that most people use the scientific method when formulating belief.

>> No.3397251

>>3397219
You didn't check your hair

>> No.3397258

>>3397222
"potential".

All you need is a dedication to understanding the world and checking your concepts through testing. Being a GOOD scientist requires much more, certainly.

>> No.3397261

>>3397222
meh, I know several researchers without any degree and numerous published works to their name.

one must merely do science, and do it well enough that a significant number of people working in the same field agree that your work is advancing knowledge and thus worthy of examination, discussion and recording.

>> No.3397262

>>3397206
it's reversed

statistical mechanics probably makes up most of the mathematical work done on statistics, while the other is a bunch of computer science (stat learning theory, machine learning) stuff. The hard math that stemmed from analysis (implemented into stuff like game theory) is far from bullshit, though its applications in stuff like econ or engineering can be argued as such, despite them working pretty good so far.

The misuse of statistics is probably in medicine/psychology... which probably falls under 5%.

>> No.3397265

The house I'm living in is full of spiders. At one point I tried to kill them off, but it was useless. Now I just put up with them. Even so, the nearest one is perhaps 4 feet away. Although I could easily have missed one.

>> No.3397266

>>3397222
That's not true. During WW2 (and later) USSR have in some cases (have heard of only one though) used a person without university degree to design an equipment - sorry I really don't remember if it was aeronautics or pure space related technology. And they took him for his skills - obviously USSR was fairly bureaucratic so it's not common at all that theywould let a random person from the street was able to to rocket science.

BTW: the guy did get a proper degree after some of his work experience.

I'm pretty sure there are such cases of bright mind (self-taught) were involved in engineering or scientific works.

>> No.3397281

It's probably referring to very small bugs that are classified as spiders.

>> No.3397288

>>3397281
Yeah. There's a fuckton of spiders around, but most of them are very small.

>> No.3397289

>>3397219
What's the floor made of. Is it by any chance wood with a gap below it? If yes then you certainly haven't checked the full volume of what's below you.

>> No.3397294

probably a semantical trick or a statistical trick underlies this ridiculous claim

>> No.3397302

>>3397281
More likely it's an urban myth regurgitated uncritically. High school / elementary school textbooks suck.

>> No.3397345

Probably true based on the fact that spiders and humans share habitat, are widely distributed, and extremely numerous.

like most probability judgments it doesn't take into account certain possible exceptions... it isn't always true, it's just statistically true.

perhaps that's why it was included, to get people thinking about the advantages and disadvantages to applying statistical methods to any real populations.

>> No.3397385

>>3397345
Statistically true? What's that supposed to mean? Probability was never mentioned in the factoid, nor "on average." Yes, this is exactly the kind of sloppy thinking we need to teach students in statistics textbooks.