USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
Do you have anything to sell??
Can you tell us how we can make some money off of this useless knowledge?!?
There is your answer.
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Once data has been manipulated it ceases to be data.
I don't think so. BY that rule converting Fahrenheit to Celsius wouldn't work.
No, that's math. This is similar to {Cx1.8}+32=F written as (Cx1.
+64)=F
Most of the manipulation is math. It's math that converts the resistance detected in a microwave receiver to a temperature.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I don't think so. BY that rule converting Fahrenheit to Celsius wouldn't work.
No, that's math. This is similar to {Cx1.8}+32=F written as (Cx1.
+64)=F
Most of the manipulation is math. It's math that converts the resistance detected in a microwave receiver to a temperature.
No.
It is the power of God (or "physics" for the farmers) that converts resistance detected in a microwave receiver to a temperature.
You guys are creative.
CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:
No.
It is the power of God (or "physics" for the farmers) that converts resistance detected in a microwave receiver to a temperature.
You guys are creative.
Physics is not mathematics and mathematics is not physics -- Richard Feynman
...and yes, he was enormously creative.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I don't think so. BY that rule converting Fahrenheit to Celsius wouldn't work.
No, that's math. This is similar to {Cx1.8}+32=F written as (Cx1.
+64)=F
Most of the manipulation is math. It's math that converts the resistance detected in a microwave receiver to a temperature.
Statistics has been a branch of mathematics for a few hundred years now.
Most of our lives are successfully influenced by that branch of math.
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Statistics has been a branch of mathematics for a few hundred years now.
Most of our lives are successfully influenced by that branch of math.
Not always.
People have a nagging tendency to refute statisticians by doing things that are statistically improbable (Trump) or by simply noting that statistical projections are not always accurate, such as no more snow in the UK by 2010.
Tricks @ Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:02 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Statistics has been a branch of mathematics for a few hundred years now.
Most of our lives are successfully influenced by that branch of math.
Not always.
People have a nagging tendency to refute statisticians by doing things that are statistically improbable (Trump) or by simply noting that statistical projections are not always accurate, such as no more snow in the UK by 2010.
Improbable doesn't mean impossible.
Tricks Tricks:
Improbable doesn't mean impossible.
And any more when some learned person tells me that something is
impossible then I'm not at all surprised when they're proven wrong.
Tricks @ Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:47 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Tricks Tricks:
Improbable doesn't mean impossible.
And any more when some learned person tells me that something is
impossible then I'm not at all surprised when they're proven wrong.
I feel like the term impossible has been cheapened by hyperbole recently.
Me, too.
raydan @ Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:15 pm
Flip a coin 100 times and chances are, you'll get close to a 50/50 split. While it's possible to get 100 heads or 100 tails, chances are so astronomically against it, might as well say it's impossible.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Statistics has been a branch of mathematics for a few hundred years now.
Most of our lives are successfully influenced by that branch of math.
Not always.
People have a nagging tendency to refute statisticians by doing things that are statistically improbable (Trump) or by simply noting that statistical projections are not always accurate, such as no more snow in the UK by 2010.
So you did read the article! It was about how cherry picking statistics can be used to lie, and further disrepute statisticians.
Trump wasn't statistically improbable, they were just asking the wrong questions. If they had asked 'do you intend to vote' and correlated that with who they would vote for, I bet they would have been more accurate.