Innumeracy was Re: Re: Tap on the Shoulder Policies Wid

[Duncan Kinder <dckinder@HGO.NET>]

The distressing aspect of Filtering Facts' argument is that similar
mathematical misconceptions are held by so many people.

Many of these people are jurors (or even judges).

So there is a risk that cases may be decided upon similar misconceptions.

I happen to have a book entitled Spreadsheet Analysis for Engineers and
Scientists by S. C. Bloch.

Bloch, while discussing decibels, presents us with the following amusing
hypothetical:

Two gunmen in the old West are having a show down at the OK corral.  They
draw and shoot simultaneously, both missing, with each gun making an 80
decibel limit.  This alarms the townsmen, who are concerned lest this
combined noise level exceed the OSHA 90 decibel limit.   Some decibel
experts are called in to testify.  They demonstrate that 80 decibels plus 80
decibels = (as I recall) 86 decibels.  The reason for this is that decibels
are based not on "normal numbers" but rather logarithms.  And logarithms
exhibit properties which, by "normal" standards, are downright peculiar.
The townsmen are pleased to hear that they are safe from OSHA violation, but
just to cover themselves hang the two gunmen anyway.

I suspect that many juries might similarly proceed.

Block provides us with some spreadsheet templates which enable us to
manipulate decibel calculations.  You  can watch decibel inputs vs. outputs
hop back and forth.  This is a tremendous aid in being able to visualize
these peculiar things called logarithms and could very well aid a jury in
reaching the right result.

Somewhat similarly, I am now reading Insight.xla by Sam Savage (no relative
of our esteemed Chris?<g>).  In this, he uses Excel to conduct Monte Carlo
simulations of many statistical situations.  You can see how random numbers
work.

I am only now a third of the way through this book, but it appears that such
an approach can help visualize many things which are very true but which,
like logarithms, are treated as dubious because they appear to be strange.

Regards,

Duncan C. Kinder
dckinder@hgo.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Kinder <dckinder@HGO.NET>
To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: Tap on the Shoulder Policies Widespread -Reply -Reply


>Look, if you want to debate whether 2+2 = 4, go somewhere else.
>
>There are recognized sampling techniques.
>
>Learn them and use them.
>
>Regards,
>
>Duncan C. Kinder
>dckinder@hgo.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Filtering Facts <burt@NORTHWEST.COM>
>To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
>Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 8:42 AM
>Subject: Re: Tap on the Shoulder Policies Widespread -Reply -Reply
>
>
>>Duncan Kinder wrote:
>>>Fundamental point.
>>>
>>>When 3 out of 4 doctors surveyed say they prefer WonderDrug, this tells
us
>>>something about those 4 doctors.  If it is 300 out of 400, those 400,
3000
>>>out of 4000, those 4000, etc.
>>>
>>>However, unless we have some basis to believe those doctors who are
>surveyed
>>>fairly represent doctors as a whole, then we can draw no further
>inferences.
>>>
>>
>>I understand your concern here, but you really seem to be displaying a
>great
>>deal of bias by simply dismissing a sample out-of-hand (and indeed a large
>>one at that, 36% of a total population) without presenting any reason for
>>believing the sample is unrepresentive of the population as a whole.
>>
>>You cite the fact that it is "self-selected", but what reason to you give
>>for concluding that there exists strong motivations among the respondants
>>for this affecting the responses?  I'm mean, I could see if the question
>was
>>"Is your boss a jerk?  Please give your full name, your boss' name, and
the
>>name of your employer."  But I don't see anything like that at work here.
>>If anything, a library would be *less* likely to respond if they had a tap
>>on the shoulder policy, and the true number would be higher.
>>
>>**************************************************************************
*
>**
>>David Burt      President, Filtering Facts
>>Website:        http://www.filteringfacts.org
>>E-Mail:         David_Burt@filteringfacts.org
>>Phone/Fax:      503 635-7048
>>
>