BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date:
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:14:39 -0400
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Message-ID:
Sender:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Peter Loring Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Hi all
This quote which seems to me to sum up the discussion of the value of statistics on beekeeping practices:

> To a stranger, the probability that I shall send a letter to the post unstamped may be derived from the statistics of the Post Office; for me those figures would have but the slightest bearing on the question. -- John Maynard Keynes

continuing, if you are interested:

FOOLED BY CAUSALITY

The indisputable success of probability theory and statistical thinking has engendered a great irony. On the one hand, we are being bombarded with advice to anticipate ubiquitous unpredictability and randomness.

We can supposedly do better by relying more on hard data and less on our intuitions. We are advised to accept the vagaries of chance and attain a more sophisticated understanding of probability and statistics. The irony here is that we are entering an era in which these valuable lessons, while often helpful, are becoming oversold. 

Yes, we are often “fooled by randomness,” and susceptible to a variety of “cognitive biases,” and oversimplifications. Our analytical weaknesses are not difficult to document. But to dwell almost exclusively on these flaws opens us to another type of error.

In the conduct of scientific research, we have the choice of a half-empty or half-full perspective. We must judge whether we really do understand what is going on to some useful extent, or must defer to quantitative empirical evidence. Statistical reasoning seems completely objective, but can blind us to nuances and subtleties. 

In the past, the problem was to teach people, especially scientists and clinicians, to apply critical skepticism to their intuitions and judgments. Unfortunately, the capacities for critical judgment and deep insight we need may be starting to atrophy, just as opportunities to apply them more productively are increasing.

HERBERT I. WEISBERG, Correlation Research, Inc., Needham, MA
Copyright © 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
quoted for review purposes only

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2