Oh. Hmmm. I think you’re right.
This thread reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: “Science is the fight against common sense.”
I heard it through Simon Singh, but I think he was quoting someone else.
That’s actually a really good point. Whenever I hear a politician arguing for common sense in a policy it makes me think “you want to use beliefs that have been scientifically proven to be incorrect?”. It’s not what people think common sense is, but given that common sense is simply another way of saying “personal opinion” it doesn’t make it any more correct, even if it’s shared by a lot of people (and is therefore common), and frequently it actually isn’t.
Mine is about rehabilitation of criminals. My heart wants to make them suffer horribly to point out the error of their ways and redress what they have done to the victim, and terrify them into never committing that crime again. Then I go and re-read the peer-reviewed research about the Scandinavian prison systems and their strong focus on rehabilitation that makes them seem more like holiday camps, and how this leads to a significantly lower recidivism rate amongst criminals, and accept that my gut is just simply wrong on this one.
You are, however, quite right about which numbers are best to pick, but it’s like the poison scene in The Princess Bride - people tend to pick birthday numbers (1 to 31), so 32 to 49 (or whatever) are better choices, but people know that other people pick birthday numbers, so perhaps the non-birthday numbers are even more heavily played…
Science certainly reveals a lot of surprises and counterintuitive things, but I think it’s a big stretch to pose it as the diametric opposite of common sense. Common sense includes things that shouldn’t need explaining, because they’re self-evident (if you eat a lot and don’t exercise, you’ll get fat - if you poke a hornet nest, you’ll get stung - you can’t sustain expenditure above your income, etc) - these things are still based on observation, but can be grasped without empirical study.
I know that when I wish someone well and they don’t know it or know about it, that its an empty gesture. I know that in my mind.
But somehow I cling to the superstition that it helps that person somehow and helps build up brownie points in some account somewhere that I might need on a rainy day.
Its stupid & nonsensical: Karma wouldn’t be an ATM and if there was an Og, would It really be running some ‘bank’?
Free will. Intellectually, I can’t bridge the gap between a mechanical universe and a creature that can direct its own thoughts and actions . . . but I still believe in free will.
And my brain tells me that the Republicans know a lot more about economics than the Democrats . . . but damn, they’re wrong about so many other things . . . .
And then there’s the old 0.99999 . . . =1.
Does anyone know if this is actually true or just technically true? Of course you have less chance of dying on an airplane in your lifetime because you spend less time on a plane. But for a specific hour spent on a plane compared to a specific hour spent in a car, do the rates of danger still work out?
I’ve calculated the per-hour rates but I don’t remember them 
I think that it’s pretty close, though, since you’re traveling those miles at almost a 10x rate compared to highway driving.
OK, I did some Googling.
This guy doesn’t actually provide any numbers, but says that the risk of dying per-hour is about the same for cars vs. planes. However, if you look at the rate per trip, planes are much safer.
I’ve heard numerous physicists explain that, in baseball, it’s impossible for a fastball to rise, and that a Goose Gossage fastball only APPEARED to rise because it didn’t sink as quickly as slower pitches do. And their explanations make perfect sense.
But damn it, I STILL can’t help thinking that fastballs really do rise.
This requires a bit of explanation.
Draw the square with vertices (0,0), (0, 1), (1, 0) and (1, 1). Draw the circle with center (1/2, 1/2) and radius 1/2. Now draw the circle with center (0, 0) that’s tangent to the previous circle. Its radius will end up being (sqrt(2) - 1)/2. Simple, right?
Now consider the equivalent figure in d dimensions. You’ve got the hypercube with corners at (0, 0, …, 0) and (1, 1, …, 1), and a hypersphere with center (1/2, 1/2, …, 1/2) and radius 1/2. Now take a look at the little hypersphere centered at the origin. Its radius is going to end up being (sqrt(d) - 1)/2 because of the way distance is measured in higher dimensions.
Now take a minute to solve the inequality (sqrt(d) - 1)/2 > 1, which gives you d > 9. So in ten dimensions, the “little” sphere which is tangent to the sphere contained in the cube will have a radius that’s bigger than the sides of the cube. I know the math works out because I’ve been over it with a fine-tuned comb, but I simply can’t bring myself to accept that this is true.
I’ve heard that per trip, the most dangerous method of travel is the space shuttle. Per mile, the most dangerous method is walking.
Per trip, the safest method is walking.
Per mile, the safest method is the space shuttle.
Therefore one should walk to the moon and take the shuttle to the Quickymart down on the corner 
You don’t do this already?
I have my shuttle warming up in the driveway right this minute.
It’s also wise, in terms of expected return, to pick numbers above 31, thereby ensuring you aren’t picking numbers that other people pick to match birthdays.
That said it hardly makes a difference anyway. You aren’t going to win. And if by some miracle you do, it’s not like you’re going to be too worried about sharing a $50 million jackpot with 4 other winners, it’s still “life changing money.”
They also appear to rise due to the angle of view as they approach the batter.
If you watch baseball on TV it’s very apparent fastballs do not curve upwards; you will never, ever seen it happen when you watch the pitch from behind the pitcher. **But from the batter’s box **a high fastball absolutely does appear to curve up; it’s a remarkably effective illusion.
And if you think about it, that’s just as good as the real thing.
Set Theory is the basis of all modern mathematics, and I defer to people who know a lot more about it than I do. But everything I know about it falls into three categories: things that are so trivially true as to be pointless, things that are almost certainly false, and things that are incomprehensible.
Well, see, what you do is project the ten-dimensional shapes down into a nine-dimensional space. That makes them much easier to visualize.
About about the fact that that they are mostly thin-sided hollow glass boxes?
Of course it’s actually true. How many fatal plane crashes are there per year in the entire world? And even if you are in any plane crash, you have a 90% chance of surving.
It’s true because the safety guidelines for flying and maintaining a commercial jet are so much higher than driving a car.