this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
372 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

10539 readers
2176 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
372
Probability.... Need I say more?! (literature.cafe)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SirSamuel 45 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I understand some of these words

Brb, gotta go eat a crayon

[–] [email protected] 40 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

There's various technicalities of how and where Beyesian statistics apply to the world but I really interpreted it as meaning "if the world is ending then it doesn't matter and if not then I'm up $50". The Beyesian is just ruthlessly practical.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago

That is definitely not the joke. The joke is that the frequentist approach gives you a clearly nonsensical conclusion, because the prior probability of the sun exploding is extremely small.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Not only that, but there's a higher chance of the detector lying than the Sun supernova-ing, so it's probably a false positive. Yes I did just read some paragraphs from 3–4 Wikipedia articles.

[–] subtext 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] SirSamuel 6 points 9 months ago

Thank you, I'll check it out eventually

BTW they call it Peach but it tastes like candle

[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Missing: any sort of physicist who will tell them both that the forward model says that the sun won't explode for a few billion years, and so far that model hasn't been wrong.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Minor correction: in a few billion years our sun will expand into its red giant death phase.

Also: our star can't go nova by our understanding of astrophysics. If it actually can, then we might need to throw out a lot of astrophysics, including predictions on when our star will expand.

Also also: the odds of the dice giving double 6s is MUCH higher than our sun going nova at any point in time even if it could go nova and was overdue.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That last part is what the Bayesian scientist is wagering on, it's not missing, as op suggested

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ah, gotcha. I tried learning Bayesian probability once and failed utterly. One of the only classes I just barely passed (stat was the other). My brain just barely computes it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The intuition is exactly your argument:

When the machine says yes it's either because

(1) the sun went nova (vanishingly small chance) and machine rolled truth (prob 35/36) -- the joint probability of this (the product) is near zero

OR

(2) sun didn't go nova (prob of basically one) and machine rolled lie (prob 1/36) -- joint prob near 1/36

Think of joint probability as the total likelihood. It is much more likely we are in scenario 2 because the total likelihood of that event (just under 1/36) is astronomically higher than the alternative (near zero)

I'm skipping stuff but hopefully my words make clear what they math doesn't always

[–] steveman_ha 2 points 9 months ago

That's a solid intro! Nice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I think our sun can go nova. What it can't do is supernova based on the Chandrashekhar limit

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

That is not missing, it's the entire fucking point of the cartoon.

[–] Moghul 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Isn't our sun too small to explode at all? IIRC the sun will expand enough to engulf the earth's orbit but will eventually shrink to a dwarf.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Too small to supernova and black hole, yes. But large enough to have a decent boom. Probably at least red giant, then a nova (explosion casting off outer layers) leaving a white dwarf remnant.

If I'm around by then, my model of medical science progress is wrong ;)

E: I'm wrong. That casting off of the outer gas envelope is not a nova. It's just a death throe of some sort.

[–] Moghul 2 points 9 months ago

Thanks for the update bro!

[–] Bye 35 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I don’t like this comic because the frequentist statistician is operating with an effective n=1. You’d ask the detector 1000 more times, and use those results to get your answer.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago

sample size of 1 is usually fine. source: i surveyed 1 person

[–] marcos 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The frequentist is unable to insert pre-conceived biases. Both will converge on the real answer if they repeat the experiment enough, but the bias being what it is, the Sun may indeed go nova on the necessary time.

[–] General_Effort 8 points 9 months ago

Take it as a commentary on publication bias.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago

I remember inserting this comic in my class paper comparing frequentist and bayesian interpretations of probability during my PhD. Aah, good times.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

“Detector! Has the sun gone nova?”

“Calculating… results available in 9 minutes and 14 seconds.”