February is over. DId your rant prediction come true?
Which part of 50% did you miss?
Yeah, I didn’t think she’d admit she was wrong.
She’s equally right. So I don’t really get the purpose of your post here.
Just that it was a silly rant, not based in reality. Looking back, that observation applies to many posts in this thread.
Republicans are not bringing the end of the world as we know it, and it’s more than a tad overwrought to suggest otherwise.
If you give 50% odds to something that either is or isn’t true, you literally can’t be wrong.
So if I give 50% odds that deep down, the moon really is made of green cheese, I can’t be wrong?
Yes. Because it’s a meaningless tautology.
I hope you never took a statistics course….
It’s not even a tautology and it’s only 13% more ridiculous than the other example.
Concerning statistics, 50% isn’t literally right with a situation that is binary if the distribution isn’t equivalent. Saying there is a 50% chance to win or lose the lottery when there is only those two outcomes for the individual buying a single ticket is obviously wrong.
I think this went over your head a bit, octo.
Nobody was talking about the accuracy of the probability. Because there was no criticism of the statistics. The criticism was that Ann was wrong about the outcome. Yet no matter what happened, Ann couldn’t be wrong.
When in a binary situation, you say either can be true, that is a tautology. That’s the definition of binary. You clearly missed a key part of the conversation.
Let’s say someone is tossing a ball into a basket and I say they have a 10% chance of making it, and they make it. You can’t say I was wrong because they made the basket. I obviously allowed for that possibility.
Sure, as long as you’re a white, heterosexual, well-off male, everything will be fine.
It may be worth bringing ‘Young Sheldon’ into this one:
Actually, it was a rant masquerading as a prediction. If I may argue @Ann_Hedonia’s case, she was simply using “50% odds” as a rhetorical shorthand for “GOP governors are so bigoted and clueless, it wouldn’t surprise me if one of them …” etc. etc.
She wasn’t literally predicting (or even establishing odds) that one of them would do it .
No. The compound statement that includes odds is definitely wrong. Why? Because the assertion that there was a 50% chance was wrong not the outcome. Again you wouldn’t use that fallacious understanding of statistics with regards to the lottery.
You’re just embarrassing yourself at this point. Best to stop digging.
But digging is fun!!! And so unproductive.
It was a rant. But whether rants belong in the Pit or PE depends on whose ox is being gored, apparently.
I think you’re mixing up OPs and responses here. AIUI, the mods don’t like people starting PE threads with an OP that’s basically a rant and not a discussion. But that doesn’t mean that the mods are going to smack posters for occasional driveby quips and zingers in responses. I mean, you yourself have posted plenty adversarial one-liners in P&E threads that didn’t really contribute anything to the discussion, without getting modded for it.
If you thought the OP was too ranty for a debate forum, you could have mentioned it back in January, but you didn’t. At present, the only one here who seems to be displaying unequal tolerance for rantiness depending on whose ideological ox the rant is goring is you.
And it does come across as just trying to deflect attention from your somewhat embarrassingly off-the-point question to Ann_Hedonia. Obviously, if somebody is offering 50% odds that something will happen, they are by definition not “predicting” that it actually will happen, or even claiming that it’s more likely to happen than not to happen.
Giving 50% odds is in fact a mathematically precise way of declaring that you think the potential event is exactly as likely not to occur as it is to occur. You really can’t get less “prediction-y” than that.
Except for the fact that it was never remotely likely to occur.