Betwetting

Serious discussions on politics, religion, and the like.
yomikoma
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:47 pm

Re: Betwetting

Post by yomikoma »

Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1138/
vvn
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: Betwetting

Post by vvn »

Obligatory xkcd http://xkcd.com/552/
DanielH
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:25 pm

Re: Betwetting

Post by DanielH »

Flint_A wrote:But we have a saying in the social sciences: "If you torture your data enough, they will confess."

(Well, I usually hear it as "it will confess", but "data" is plural damn it.)
The word “data” is plural, but no individual datum is confessing. I think the proper fix would be be “If you torture your data set¹ long enough, it will confess.”; the entire collection, treated as a single object, does the confessing.

¹ Do statisticians use this term, or just computer scientists? if not, then it should just be read as “collection or data”
Flint_A
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:47 pm

Re: Betwetting

Post by Flint_A »

They do use that term, yes. And sure, that sounds good to me.
sparr
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:04 pm

Re: Betwetting

Post by sparr »

Flint_A wrote:How strong is the correlation? It's obviously not 1.00, literally every bedwetter does not become a serial killer.
Although, the reverse correlation could be 1.00 (every serial killer could be a bedwetter), which would still be amazingly important an useful information, regardless of the correlation factor in the other direction.
Flint_A
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:47 pm

Re: Betwetting

Post by Flint_A »

Eh. If someone's been accused of being a serial killer and yet they don't wet the bed, that wouldn't be enough evidence for them to go free. It'd just change our statistics. Induction is bad for legal judgement.

On the other hand, we could use their bedwetting to taunt serial killers we know but haven't yet caught, which I suppose is still useful.
Post Reply