Chance News 107: Difference between revisions

From ChanceWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 36: Line 36:
Submitted by Peter Doyle
Submitted by Peter Doyle


==Item 1==
==Vitamin C and cancer==
[http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/18/vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-b/ Vitamin C and cancer: Has Linus Pauling been vindicated?]<br>
''ScienceBlogs'', 18 February
 
The post links to [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/aug/05/cancer.medicalresearch a story] from the ''Guardian'' which reports that doctors are studying whether large doses of Vitamin C together with drug treatments can improve cancer survival rates.  This calls to mind Linus Pauling's [http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/MM/p-nid/57 longtime campaign] to promote medical uses of Vitamin C.  From ''ScienceBlogs'' we read:
<blockquote>
It’s been noted that there appears to be a tendency among Nobel Prize recipients in science to become enamored of strange ideas or even outright pseudoscience in their later years. Indeed, it’s happened often enough that some wags have dubbed this tendency the “Nobel disease.”  Be it Linus Pauling and his obsession with vitamin C, Nikolaas Tinbergen and his adoption of the “refrigerator mother” hypothesis as the cause of autism (which has led one blogger going by the ‘nym Prometheus to quip that Tinbergen’s Nobel acceptance speech represented a “nearly unbeatable record for shortest time between receiving the Nobel Prize and saying something really stupid about a field in which the recipient had little experience”)
<br><br>
[T]here’s something about becoming a Nobel Laureate that has a tendency to lead people to becoming cranks. Either that, or maybe it’s because mavericks who make Nobel-worthy discoveries have a tendency not always to recognize that not all of their ideas are as brilliant as the ones that garnered the Nobel Prize for them, although certainly another possibility is that winning the Nobel Prize tends to give some scientists an inflated sense of their own expertise in fields of science not related to the ones for which they won their Nobel Prize in the first place. Maybe it’s a bit of all of these.
</blockquote>
 
Submitted by Paul Alper


==Item 2==
==Item 2==

Revision as of 00:48, 29 September 2015

Quotations

"Mr. Slemrod [a public finance economist at the University of Michigan] also urged economists to talk in terms of ranges rather than point estimates when discussing how taxes affect the economy, to reflect the fact that these figures are simply educated guesses. But he understands why they don’t. 'Washington wants a number,' he said. “Washington doesn’t like confidence intervals.'"

in: How economists forecast growth under Jeb Bush? By guessing, New York Times, 14 September 2015

Submitted by Bill Peterson


“If ten thousand people flip a coin, after ten flips the odds are there will be someone who has turned up heads every time. People will hail this man as a genius, with a natural ability to flip heads. Some idiots will actually give him money. This is exactly what happened to LTCM. But it’s obvious that LTCM didn’t know [bleep] about risk control. They were all charlatans.”

Nassam Nicholas Taleb, cited in The Quants, by Scott Patterson, 2010

Submitted by Margaret Cibes


“[E]conomic decisions are usually best made on the basis of ‘expected value’ …. Clearly just one of the many things that can happen will happen – not the average of all of them. …. I always say I have no interest in being a skydiver who’s successful 95% of the time.”

“Loss occurs when risk – the possibility of loss – collides with negative events. Thus the riskiness of an investment becomes apparent only when it is tested in a negative environment. …. The fact that an investment is susceptible to a serious negative development that will occur only infrequently … can make it appear safer than it really is. …. That’s why Warren Buffett famously said, ‘… you only find out who’s swimming naked when the tide goes out.’”

Howard Marks, “Risk Revisited Again”, memo from Chair of Oaktree, June 8, 2015

Submitted by Margaret Cibes

Forsooth

The last edition of Chance News included a story on Lightning and the lottery, which is reminiscent of the following greeting card:

Lottery lightning.jpeg

Submitted by Alan Shuchat


"... I’ve listed the share of Democratic voters who identified as liberal, and as white, in the 39 states where the networks conducted exit polls during the 2008 Democratic primaries. Then I’ve multiplied the two numbers together to estimate the share of Democrats in each state who were both white and liberal. ...It would be better if the exit polls directly listed the number of white liberals. Unfortunately, the exit polls do not provide this data, so we have to live with an estimate instead."

--Nate Silver, in: Bernie Sanders could win Iowa and New Hampshire. Then lose everywhere else., FiveThirtyEight.com, 8 July 2015

Submitted by Peter Doyle

Vitamin C and cancer

Vitamin C and cancer: Has Linus Pauling been vindicated?
ScienceBlogs, 18 February

The post links to a story from the Guardian which reports that doctors are studying whether large doses of Vitamin C together with drug treatments can improve cancer survival rates. This calls to mind Linus Pauling's longtime campaign to promote medical uses of Vitamin C. From ScienceBlogs we read:

It’s been noted that there appears to be a tendency among Nobel Prize recipients in science to become enamored of strange ideas or even outright pseudoscience in their later years. Indeed, it’s happened often enough that some wags have dubbed this tendency the “Nobel disease.” Be it Linus Pauling and his obsession with vitamin C, Nikolaas Tinbergen and his adoption of the “refrigerator mother” hypothesis as the cause of autism (which has led one blogger going by the ‘nym Prometheus to quip that Tinbergen’s Nobel acceptance speech represented a “nearly unbeatable record for shortest time between receiving the Nobel Prize and saying something really stupid about a field in which the recipient had little experience”)

[T]here’s something about becoming a Nobel Laureate that has a tendency to lead people to becoming cranks. Either that, or maybe it’s because mavericks who make Nobel-worthy discoveries have a tendency not always to recognize that not all of their ideas are as brilliant as the ones that garnered the Nobel Prize for them, although certainly another possibility is that winning the Nobel Prize tends to give some scientists an inflated sense of their own expertise in fields of science not related to the ones for which they won their Nobel Prize in the first place. Maybe it’s a bit of all of these.

Submitted by Paul Alper

Item 2