Adding assumptions does not get one closer to reality

You see it all the time, someone tries to "build a case" by stating a bunch of assumptions. I don't know where some people are coming from but they actually seem to think the greater amount of assumptions they state, the stronger their case is.

It's easy to prove mathematically that more assumptions make an argument weaker.


www.mathsisfun.com...

As the picture above describes, the more assumptions your argument requires, the more unlikely you are to be right. If each of your first three assumptions has a 50% probability of being true then the probability of all three of those assumptions being right simultaneously is only 12.5% (if they are "independent events").

An argument that must have only two such assumptions be right is automatically much stronger than one that must have three such assumptions be correct simultaneously.

I know there are many people on this website that reject logic completely. That's fine, you don't need logic at all to accept that what I'm explaining in this post is true, you just need to accept the undeniable mathematics involved.

The next time you're watching a video or reading a theory where about ten assumptions are stated as facts before a conclusion is made (which requires all or most of the assumptions to be true), just move on. You're way out there in woo woo land right from the start.

a reply to: Profusion

You, yourself, will succumb to this theory.

Everyone will.

My logic is better than your logic and your logic is better than my logic.

Unless...

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Profusion

You, yourself, will succumb to this theory.

Everyone will.

My logic is better than your logic and your logic is better than my logic.

Unless...

The fact that you're calling what I presented in the original post a "theory" reveals to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not a theory, it's a mathematical fact. You're also implying that what I presented in the original post is "logic" when it's not logic, it's pure mathematics.

As for the rest of what you wrote, pure assumptions. Nice use of irony.

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Profusion

You, yourself, will succumb to this theory.

Everyone will.

My logic is better than your logic and your logic is better than my logic.

Unless...

The fact that you're calling what I presented in the original post a "theory" reveals to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not a theory, it's a mathematical fact. You're also implying that what I presented in the original post is "logic" when it's not logic, it's pure mathematics.

As for the rest of what you wrote, pure assumptions. Nice use of irony.

Fact?

Is it peer reviewed? Post it.

I'll be sure to quote this post when you reply in any way emotionally to anything.

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Profusion

You, yourself, will succumb to this theory.

Everyone will.

My logic is better than your logic and your logic is better than my logic.

Unless...

The fact that you're calling what I presented in the original post a "theory" reveals to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not a theory, it's a mathematical fact. You're also implying that what I presented in the original post is "logic" when it's not logic, it's pure mathematics.

As for the rest of what you wrote, pure assumptions. Nice use of irony.

Fact?

Is it peer reviewed? Post it.

I'll be sure to quote this post when you reply in any way emotionally to anything.

You're asking for peer review for the mathematical computation of probability of independent events?

How about every basic course in statistics and every basic statistics textbook in the world...

Is that enough peer review for you?

Forget about peer review, if you could find one professional statistician and/or expert in statistics in human history that disagreed with the theory I presented in the original post, I would be stunned.

You'll never find one, I'll guarantee it. If you do, I'll leave this forum forever.

a reply to: Profusion

Forget about peer review

Forget about your verifications of the verifications of your claims.

So you must be right. And it stops with you.. Right?

It's rare that one goes on such a convincing rant without even giving the inspiration for it.

Did your significant other accuse you of cheating? Do you actually beleive Hillary about her emails? Not convinced of aliens?

What is it?

a reply to: Profusion

Well my mother had a different approach...she hated the word assume, because she said all it did was make an ass out of u and me.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Profusion

Forget about peer review

Forget about your verifications of the verifications of your claims.

So you must be right. And it stops with you.. Right?

You asked for peer review and I could list a dozen textbooks on statistics.

You're telling me that what I presented in the original post is "your claims"?

Now you're making a claim which is that the concept that I presented in the original post is "my claim." You're absolutely wrong about that. I learned what I presented in the original post from my study of statistics.

What you don't seem to understand is that we're discussing a mathematical fact, it's not "my claim."

If you won't even attempt to do what I requested in the following quote and/or if you fail at it then don't expect me to reply to any more of your posts in this thread. I can easily prove that what I presented in the original post is a mathematical fact. The fact that we're even discussing this is shameful.

Forget about peer review, if you could find one professional statistician and/or expert in statistics in human history that disagreed with the theory I presented in the original post, I would be stunned.

You'll never find one, I'll guarantee it. If you do, I'll leave this forum forever.

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
It's rare that one goes on such a convincing rant without even giving the inspiration for it.

Did your significant other accuse you of cheating? Do you actually beleive Hillary about her emails? Not convinced of aliens?

What is it?

I was thinking about the Shemitah thing recently and how people just keep getting fooled by stuff like that. I knew somebody that seemed really knowledgeable and intelligent who was a big believer in December 21, 2012 being the end of the world. I look at all religious beliefs as being in the same boat.

As far as forums like this, once I see that someone just lists a bunch of assumptions or unsubstantiated claims and then makes a conclusion based on those statements, I generally disregard their posts from then on.

Here's one way to look at...

How many assumptions does it take before the probability of a theory being correct is near zero? Sometimes you get there with the first assumption, sometimes it takes two, sometimes three but eventually all theories get there with enough assumptions.

Some people just can't grasp that simple concept.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Profusion

Well my mother had a different approach...she hated the word assume, because she said all it did was make an ass out of u and me.

I wanted to show in my original post that that's not a theory, it's a fact.

It's not an opinion, it's not a claim, it's a mathematical fact.

a reply to: Profusion

Nicely put

Assumption makes an Ass out of everyone.

Sadly, the internet is rife with both assumptions, and asses - most of whom use it as a tool to spread bigoted hatred that other people lap up.

The key to stopping assumption is fact and education.

a reply to: Profusion
The Laws of Probability are heavily based on statistics. The 2 go hand in hand. There again you are also assuming that there would be no weighting to a result. I.E , like the times a weighted dice when thrown would result in any other number than the one that was on the other side of the weight. You assume that number would come up every time. Of course , due to the randomness of the universe , it would not.

Probability is not as cut and dried as one would think....

a reply to: Profusion

No matter what you say, it is math and is just a theory, it is not fact and it is not proof of anything other than a human construct.

Everything we have been taught is based on assumptions.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Profusion

Well my mother had a different approach...she hated the word assume, because she said all it did was make an ass out of u and me.

That was my dad!!!

"Assume" was pretty much a bad word in our home growing up... at least we knew that if our dad heard us say it we were in for quite a lecture and that was bad!

a reply to: Profusion

The next time you're watching a video or reading a theory where about ten assumptions are stated as facts before a conclusion is made (which requires all or most of the assumptions to be true), just move on. You're way out there in woo woo land right from the start.

Thank you for this! I've been noticing it more and more lately, only I thought in terms of "conclusions" as opposed to "assumptions," but it's in practice it would seem to be the same thing. It's like the author has to tell me the conclusions, before telling me the situation. Consequently, by the time the reader gets to the gist of the article, the conclusions have already been planted in their minds. I don't even bother reading that far anymore.

And bravo to the OP in general!

I'd have to agree with the premise of the OP, but there are no less assumptions into the known&unknown permutations and combinations of 'reality' - and how they could, might, do interact with 'stuff'...I think I've seen it many times written on these board forums - that, science can only deal with what it 'knows' at any particular time, and build upon it (or revise its stance on the acquisition of 'new' knowns).

That, in itself really tells You the nature of the kind of 'assumption' you describe...so, I agree...

Å99

I assume you are conveying the truth as we view it from our current position.

How deliciously refreshing, an excellent rant, a sorbet to clean the palette before the main course.

a reply to: Rikku

I am off topic, just confused why you would reply adversely to a topic others seem to enjoy whether they agree with it or not?
Perhaps you may want to start your own thread to discuss why you think the "Rant" forum should be excluded?
I am curious.
WIS