Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From ChanceWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(313 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Forsooth==
==Forsooth==
----
"There are 33 percent more such women in their 20s than men. To help us see what a big difference 33 percent is,
Birger invites us to imagine a late-night dorm room hangout that’s drawing to an end, and everyone wants to hook up.
'Now imagine,' he writes, that in this dorm room, 'there are three women and two men.'"


[https://quomodocumque.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/imagine-33-percent/ Imagine 33 percent] at Jordan Ellenberg's Quodmodocumque blog (20 November 2015).
==Quotations==
“We know that people tend to overestimate the frequency of well-publicized, spectacular
events compared with more commonplace ones; this is a well-understood phenomenon in
the literature of risk assessment and leads to the truism that when statistics plays folklore,
folklore always wins in a rout.
<div align=right>-- Donald Kennedy (former president of Stanford University), ''Academic Duty'', Harvard University Press, 1997, p.17</div>


Submitted by Priscilla Bremser
----


==Meat and cancer==
"Using scientific language and measurement doesn’t prevent a researcher from conducting flawed experiments and drawing wrong conclusions — especially when they confirm preconceptions."
Albert Kim sent a link to this story:


:[http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-health-organization-so-bad-at-communicating-cancer-risk/412468/ Beefing With the World Health Organization's Cancer Warnings]<br>
<div align=right>-- Blaise Agüera y Arcas, Margaret Mitchell and Alexander Todoorov, quoted in: The racist history behind facial recognition, ''New York Times'', 10 July 2019</div>


==In progress==
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/magazine/placebo-effect-medicine.html What if the Placebo Effect Isn’t a Trick?]<br>
by Gary Greenberg, ''New York Times Magazine'', 7 November 2018


If you have been following the news, you know that International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently [https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf issued a report] on the status of red and processed meats as carcinogens.  The agency found “sufficient evidence” processed meat causes colorectal cancer.  The finding was widely covered in the popular news media;  some of the more sensational headlines highlighted that processed meat was now in the same category as cigarettes!  The IARC also found “limited evidence” limited evidence linking red meat to cancer.  Not surprisingly, these finding drew strong rebuttals from meat industry groups.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/opinion/pretrial-ai.html The Problems With Risk Assessment Tools]<br>
by Chelsea Barabas, Karthik Dinakar and Colin Doyle, ''New York Times'', 17 July 2019


The ''Atlantic'' article doesn’t contest the findings, but laments the Agency’s poor strategy for the magnitude of the risk.  The article links to a very informative [http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know report from Cancer UK], which lays out the story more clearly.  Reproduced below is one of their infographics, which more carefully compares the risks of tobacco and meat.
==Hurricane Maria deaths==
Laura Kapitula sent the following to the Isolated Statisticians e-mail list:


<center>[[File:Tobacco-vs-Meat-TWITTER.png | 400 px]]</center>
:[Why counting casualties after a hurricane is so hard]<br>
:by Jo Craven McGinty, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2018


The situation was summed up succinctly in the following tweet (also sent to us by Albert Kim):
The article is subtitled: Indirect deaths—such as those caused by gaps in medication—can occur months after a storm, complicating tallies
Laura noted that
:[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/02/did-4645-people-die-in-hurricane-maria-nope/?utm_term=.0a5e6e48bf11 Did 4,645 people die in Hurricane Maria? Nope.]<br>
:by Glenn Kessler, ''Washington Post'', 1 June 2018


[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/10/hot_hands_in_basketball_are_real_new_analysis_shows.html “Hot Hands” in basketball are real. Experts have been arguing about these statistics for decades; now we know why.]<br>
The source of the 4645 figure is a [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1803972 NEJM article]. Point estimate, the 95% confidence interval ran from 793 to 8498.
by Jordan Ellenberg, ''Slate'', 26 October 2015.


Ellenberg gives an especially clear discussion of the averaging problem alluded to aboveHe uses the example of families with 3 children.
President Trump has asserted that the actual number is
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1040217897703026689 6 to 18].
The ''Post'' article notes that Puerto Rican official had asked researchers at George Washington University to do an estimate of the death tollThat work is not complete.
[https://prstudy.publichealth.gwu.edu/ George Washington University study]


==Diet science==
:[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-still-dont-know-how-many-people-died-because-of-katrina/?ex_cid=538twitter We sttill don’t know how many people died because of Katrina]<br>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/upshot/are-fats-unhealthy-the-battle-over-dietary-guidelines.html Are fats unhealthy? The battle over dietary guidelines]<br>  
:by Carl Bialik, FiveThirtyEight, 26 August 2015
by Aaron E. Carroll, “Upshot” blog, ''New York Time''s, 12 October 2015.


Related “Upshot”:  [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/upshot/behind-new-dietary-guidelines-better-science.html Behind new dietary guidelines, better science], February 23, 2015
----
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/climate/hurricane-evacuation-path-forecasts.html These 3 Hurricane Misconceptions Can Be Dangerous. Scientists Want to Clear Them Up.]<br>
[https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-88-5-651 Misinterpretations of the “Cone of Uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 Hurricane Season]<br>
[https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutcone.shtml Definition of the NHC Track Forecast Cone]
----
[https://www.popsci.com/moderate-drinking-benefits-risks Remember when a glass of wine a day was good for you? Here's why that changed.]
''Popular Science'', 10 September 2018
----
[https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/08/30/googling-the-news Googling the news]<br>
''Economist'', 1 September 2018


==Earthquake prediction==
[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/google-tests-changes-to-its-search-algorithm-how-search-works.html We sat in on an internal Google meeting where they talked about changing the search algorithm — here's what we learned]
[http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-quake-prediction-20151023-story.html Why a 99.9% earthquake prediction is 100% controversial]<br>
----
by Rong-Gong Lin II, ''Los Angeles Times'', 23 October 2015
[http://www.wyso.org/post/stats-stories-reading-writing-and-risk-literacy Reading , Writing and Risk Literacy]


"This [http://geodesy.unr.edu/publications/DonnellanEtAl2015.pdf report]
[http://www.riskliteracy.org/]
<blockquote>
-----
Donnellan added that the USGS' 85% probability and her 99.9% chance still favored a big earthquake in the next three years.
[https://twitter.com/i/moments/1025000711539572737?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&refsrc=email Today is the deadliest day of the year for car wrecks in the U.S.]
 
"If an earthquake happens in three years, we're both right," Donnellan said.
</blockquote>


==Some math doodles==
==Some math doodles==
<math>P \left({A_1 \cup A_2}\right) = P\left({A_1}\right) + P\left({A_2}\right) -P \left({A_1 \cap A_2}\right)</math>
<math>P \left({A_1 \cup A_2}\right) = P\left({A_1}\right) + P\left({A_2}\right) -P \left({A_1 \cap A_2}\right)</math>
<math>P(E)  = {n \choose k} p^k (1-p)^{ n-k}</math>


<math>\hat{p}(H|H)</math>
<math>\hat{p}(H|H)</math>


<math>\hat{p}(H|HH)</math>
<math>\hat{p}(H|HH)</math>

Latest revision as of 20:58, 17 July 2019


Forsooth

Quotations

“We know that people tend to overestimate the frequency of well-publicized, spectacular events compared with more commonplace ones; this is a well-understood phenomenon in the literature of risk assessment and leads to the truism that when statistics plays folklore, folklore always wins in a rout.”

-- Donald Kennedy (former president of Stanford University), Academic Duty, Harvard University Press, 1997, p.17

"Using scientific language and measurement doesn’t prevent a researcher from conducting flawed experiments and drawing wrong conclusions — especially when they confirm preconceptions."

-- Blaise Agüera y Arcas, Margaret Mitchell and Alexander Todoorov, quoted in: The racist history behind facial recognition, New York Times, 10 July 2019

In progress

What if the Placebo Effect Isn’t a Trick?
by Gary Greenberg, New York Times Magazine, 7 November 2018

The Problems With Risk Assessment Tools
by Chelsea Barabas, Karthik Dinakar and Colin Doyle, New York Times, 17 July 2019

Hurricane Maria deaths

Laura Kapitula sent the following to the Isolated Statisticians e-mail list:

[Why counting casualties after a hurricane is so hard]
by Jo Craven McGinty, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2018

The article is subtitled: Indirect deaths—such as those caused by gaps in medication—can occur months after a storm, complicating tallies

Laura noted that

Did 4,645 people die in Hurricane Maria? Nope.
by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 1 June 2018

The source of the 4645 figure is a NEJM article. Point estimate, the 95% confidence interval ran from 793 to 8498.

President Trump has asserted that the actual number is 6 to 18. The Post article notes that Puerto Rican official had asked researchers at George Washington University to do an estimate of the death toll. That work is not complete. George Washington University study

We sttill don’t know how many people died because of Katrina
by Carl Bialik, FiveThirtyEight, 26 August 2015

These 3 Hurricane Misconceptions Can Be Dangerous. Scientists Want to Clear Them Up.
Misinterpretations of the “Cone of Uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 Hurricane Season
Definition of the NHC Track Forecast Cone


Remember when a glass of wine a day was good for you? Here's why that changed. Popular Science, 10 September 2018


Googling the news
Economist, 1 September 2018

We sat in on an internal Google meeting where they talked about changing the search algorithm — here's what we learned


Reading , Writing and Risk Literacy

[1]


Today is the deadliest day of the year for car wrecks in the U.S.

Some math doodles

<math>P \left({A_1 \cup A_2}\right) = P\left({A_1}\right) + P\left({A_2}\right) -P \left({A_1 \cap A_2}\right)</math>

<math>P(E) = {n \choose k} p^k (1-p)^{ n-k}</math>

<math>\hat{p}(H|H)</math>

<math>\hat{p}(H|HH)</math>

Accidental insights

My collective understanding of Power Laws would fit beneath the shallow end of the long tail. Curiosity, however, easily fills the fat end. I long have been intrigued by the concept and the surprisingly common appearance of power laws in varied natural, social and organizational dynamics. But, am I just seeing a statistical novelty or is there meaning and utility in Power Law relationships? Here’s a case in point.

While carrying a pair of 10 lb. hand weights one, by chance, slipped from my grasp and fell onto a piece of ceramic tile I had left on the carpeted floor. The fractured tile was inconsequential, meant for the trash.

BrokenTile.jpg

As I stared, slightly annoyed, at the mess, a favorite maxim of the Greek philosopher, Epictetus, came to mind: “On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, turn to yourself and ask what power you have to put it to use.” Could this array of large and small polygons form a Power Law? With curiosity piqued, I collected all the fragments and measured the area of each piece.

Piece Sq. Inches % of Total
1 43.25 31.9%
2 35.25 26.0%
3 23.25 17.2%
4 14.10 10.4%
5 7.10 5.2%
6 4.70 3.5%
7 3.60 2.7%
8 3.03 2.2%
9 0.66 0.5%
10 0.61 0.5%
Montante plot1.png

The data and plot look like a Power Law distribution. The first plot is an exponential fit of percent total area. The second plot is same data on a log normal format. Clue: Ok, data fits a straight line. I found myself again in the shallow end of the knowledge curve. Does the data reflect a Power Law or something else, and if it does what does it reflect? What insights can I gain from this accident? Favorite maxims of Epictetus and Pasteur echoed in my head: “On the occasion of every accident that befalls you, remember to turn to yourself and inquire what power you have to turn it to use” and “Chance favors only the prepared mind.”

Montante plot2.png

My “prepared” mind searched for answers, leading me down varied learning paths. Tapping the power of networks, I dropped a note to Chance News editor Bill Peterson. His quick web search surfaced a story from Nature News on research by Hans Herrmann, et. al. Shattered eggs reveal secrets of explosions. As described there, researchers have found power-law relationships for the fragments produced by shattering a pane of glass or breaking a solid object, such as a stone. Seems there is a science underpinning how things break and explode; potentially useful in Forensic reconstructions. Bill also provided a link to a vignette from CRAN describing a maximum likelihood procedure for fitting a Power Law relationship. I am now learning my way through that.

Submitted by William Montante