Re: Why Beijing?

[ekkilu@xxxxxxxxx]

Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2006 12:52:09 -0800, <ekkilu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> <news:1167511929.531019.279330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> Yes, but Aidan is correct in saying that a single example
> >> does not disprove a *correlation*.  We all know that it's
> >> perfectly possible for a man six feet tall to weigh less
> >> than a man who stands only 5' 9", but there is still a
> >> positive correlation between the heights and weights of U.S.
> >> adult males: if all you know about A and B is that A is
> >> taller than B, you will be right more often than not if you
> >> guess that A is also heavier than B.
>
> > "Bayesian inference" are the keywords:
>
> Not really.  One needn't know anything about Bayesian
> inference to know about correlation.

It's one small step to climb, as proved by top political science
departments. Two googlable keywords beats a non-googlable paragraph.

By the way, there are more cherry picking people than bayesian
inference people, as shown by GoogleFight:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=cherry+picking&word2=bayesian+inference

OK, it's a joke. But in the brave new world, math is everywhere. Newer
generations have newer ways of doing things. The world does not stop.

-- Ekki