# Lets discuss Bayesian Statistics **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 17, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-bayesian-statistics/619051 "2012-04-17T15:39:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-bayesian-statistics/619051/5 "2012-04-17T16:03:53Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Oh, \*\*Bricker’s \*\*actual question was: If 8% of all rape allegations are false, it seems obvious to me that if we know nothing else about a particular rape allegation, there’s an 8% chance it’s false. Why is that wrong? > > Well, it’s not wrong. Just that this is only true if you know nothing about the rape case, and you’ll have to throw that number away once you learn something. And it doesn’t address the case discussed in the linked thread, which also included the probability that a woman who claimed rape was lying. > > So, let’s discuss the general case rather than \*\*Bricker’s \*\*specific question here. Um… that’s all I was ever saying: > [@But, Mr. Francis, you are a rapist.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-mr-francis-you-are-a-rapist/367904/108): > > Precisely correct. > > If anyone can find a single post in which I suggest that the CAUSE of the trustworthiness or otherwise is race, please trot it out. You can’t, because I never said such a thing, and I never would. > > IF all other things were equal, such that the ONLY observable factor differentiating the two were race - which means that we eliminated all hidden codependent variables as causes - THEN, and ONLY THEN, could we say that there is some probative value to it, slight though it might be. > > “All other things being equal.” Is that a correct statement, or not? --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-bayesian-statistics/619051)._