Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[jt512]

,,, and back to the OP, I thought of another analogy, since this thread is so big on them.
Two horses about to race. The pale one has been seen running private tracks and looks fast. The other however has never been in a race. Its been rumoured to have been run on a few private tracks though and said to be capable of running.

Vegas bookies give the pale horse 100:1 odds in favour of winning. What do they give the dark horse?

The odds of the pale horse winning depend on the odds of the dark horse winning. If the bookie had no rational way to assign odds to the dark horse, he could not have rationally assigned odds to the pale horse either. In the oversimplified case of the two horses being the only competitors in the race, and the bookie giving odds on each horse on the basis of fairness (rather than guaranteeing him a profit, which is what he'd actually do), the odds on the dark horse would have to be 1:100 in order for the corresponding probabilities to sum to 1, as they must under these conditions.

 

[jaydeehess]

,,, and back to the OP, I thought of another analogy, since this thread is so big on them.
Two horses about to race. The pale one has been seen running private tracks and looks fast. The other however has never been in a race. Its been rumoured to have been run on a few private tracks though and said to be capable of running.

Vegas bookies give the pale horse 100:1 odds in favour of winning. What do they give the dark horse?

Vegas bookies gave good odds for pale horse win. Therefore dark horse odds must be lesser.

The reason for pale horse good odds is the fact that it had proven it can run in a race.

 

[Daylightstar]

... I think the huge amount of planets in the universe, might give alien life a distinct edge over ESP.

It's rather the known and demonstrable existence of life in the universe in one location which gives your 'alien life' the edge.
Contrast this with ESP, for which no demonstration of existence in any way has been/can be provided, only claims, anecdotes and excuses.

 

[Dinwar]

The odds of the pale horse winning depend on the odds of the dark horse winning.

Okay, so don't make it a race. What are the odds that each horse will beat a third horse's fastest time?

And to make it a true analogy, let's say that we've only heard rumors about the dark horse's existence. There are no pictures, no video, only people who know a guy who knows a guy who's seen it.

Which do you think will beat the third horse's fastest time? Which would you put your money on?

 

[jaydeehess]

It's rather the known and demonstrable existence of life in the universe in one location which gives your 'alien life' the edge.
Contrast this with ESP, for which no demonstration of existence in any way has been/can be provided, only claims, anecdotes and excuses.

A point that has been made many times in this thread and which Fudbucker basically rejects and states that the subset of the universe for advanced life must be strictly extraterrestrial.

I for one am willing to include the entire universe, because I can see no reason to exclude the local region, in both the existence of advanced life life forms and the existence of ESP. We are trying to then determine the relative odds of a second advanced life form in the entire universe and that of the existence of ESP in the universe. If the beings of Alpha Centuri B are advanced and capable of remote viewing (Hi guys!) that would qualify.

The fact that it is shown that this universe is capable of producing a region with the conditions amenable to not only life, but also what we would characterize as advanced life, implies that it is capable of producing more than a single region with those conditions.

 

[Dancing David]

If physicists determine that ESP is possible, biologists are going to have to go back to the drawing board.

And there is no mechanism that makes it possible, as of yet.

 

[jt512]

Okay, so don't make it a race. What are the odds that each horse will beat a third horse's fastest time?

That would depend (obviously) on how fast the three horses were. If you give some information on each horse, I'll give you a probability. If you don't give me any information on any horses, then the probability that the pale horse and the dark horse each beat a third horse's fasted time, I'd have to assume all three were equally fast, and assign low probabilities, say 1/100, to both, since it would be rare for a horse to run his fastest race ever.

And to make it a true analogy, let's say that we've only heard rumors about the dark horse's existence. There are no pictures, no video, only people who know a guy who knows a guy who's seen it.

Then the dark horse's probability of beating the third horse's best time would be (1/100) × P(E), the latter factor being the probability that the dark horse exists. P(E) would be a subjective judgment that would depend on the circumstances under which the question arose. If the I know the guy who knows the guy, and the guy I know is reliable and vouches for the existence of the horse, then P(E) might be, say, 0.9. Under less certain circumstance it would be lower. If I thought I was being swindled, it would be much lower.

Which do you think will beat the third horse's fastest time? Which would you put your money on?

Which one I would bet on, if either, would depend on the probabilities I above, and whether the odds I was being offered were sufficient, given those probabilities.


Okay, I played your game. Now you play mine. The Higgs boson was found to exist in 2012 (and confirmed in 2013). Assume it is now 2010. What would you say the probability is that the Higgs boson exists?

 

[Dinwar]

That would depend (obviously) on how fast the three horses were.

This qualifies as perhaps the bigginst "No kidding" statement currently on these boards.

Then the dark horse's probability of beating the third horse's best time would be (1/100) × P(E), the latter factor being the probability that the dark horse exists.

Be honest for a moment, and quit hiding behind a smoke-screen of mathematics. If someone said "I know a guy who's seen this black horse that can run faster than that!" are you SERIOUSLY going to sit there and calculate the odds? If you are, you're the only human being to ever do so. The rest of us know that this sort of thing is called an urban legend and is so rarely true that it can be ignored.

You wouldn't be a dime on the dark horse, and you wouldn't believe it existed. No math is required; the evidence is so obviously insufficient to justify the conclusion that the dark horse would win--or that it even exists--that there's no need to think about it further.

Now you play mine. The Higgs boson was found to exist in 2012 (and confirmed in 2013). Assume it is now 2010. What would you say the probability is that the Higgs boson exists?

I'm not a physicist. However, this is an entirely different set-up. Physicists had a great deal of indirect evidence for its existence, evidence amounting to FAR more than hearsay (I saw some; I'll be the first to admit I didn't understand it all, but I've had enough conversations with physicists that I can state with confidence that they do and they were convinced of its existence). Prior to its discovery I figured it probably existed. If it had been proven to not exist, it would have been shocking to pretty much everyone.

 

[jt512]

This qualifies as perhaps the bigginst "No kidding" statement currently on these boards.

Be honest for a moment, and quit hiding behind a smoke-screen of mathematics. If someone said "I know a guy who's seen this black horse that can run faster than that!" are you SERIOUSLY going to sit there and calculate the odds? If you are, you're the only human being to ever do so. The rest of us know that this sort of thing is called an urban legend and is so rarely true that it can be ignored.

If I'm offered a serious bet, then yes, I'd calculate odds. Of course if I didn't trust the person offering the bet, I wouldn't take it, because I would believe the odds of the horse existing and being as fast as he claims too low. In that case, I wouldn't have to bother doing a calculation.

I'm not a physicist. However, this is an entirely different set-up. Physicists had a great deal of indirect evidence for its existence, evidence amounting to FAR more than hearsay (I saw some; I'll be the first to admit I didn't understand it all, but I've had enough conversations with physicists that I can state with confidence that they do and they were convinced of its existence). Prior to its discovery I figured it probably existed. If it had been proven to not exist, it would have been shocking to pretty much everyone.

And couldn't you quantify "probably existed" if you had to, at least to a ballpark figure? Greater than 50%? Greater than 75? Greater than 90% Greater than 99%? Greater than 99.9?

 

[Dinwar]

If I'm offered a serious bet, then yes, I'd calculate odds.

You would calculate the odds of a horse winning a contest when you have no evidence that the horse even exists beyond hearsay?

Sorry, but I find that about as incredible as claims of telekinesis. The infinitely more likely scenario is that you'd dismiss the bet as "not serious"--the very inclusion of that weasle-word demonstrates this.

And couldn't you quantify "probably existed" if you had to, at least to a ballpark figure?

Not in any meaningful way. I could express my statement in French if you demanded it, but it wouldn't be any more meaningful than the English version, it would be equally confusing, and it would be equally pointless. Even if I used your favorite statistical formula it'd still be based on things that are inherently unquantifiable by any means I had at my disposal at the time. (This is why your statement about how much you trust the person renders your calculations meaningless, by the way--it's a fudge factor, which allows you to [conciously or un] alter the results to whatever you want, and which is pretty much impossible to quantify meaningfully.)

You don't use a micrometer to measure studs for a house. You don't use a laser level to trim trees. And you don't express mathematically statements that are as vague as mine. There's no point, it takes more time than it's worth, and it lends a false sense of precision to what is inherently an imprecise statement.

 

[jt512]

Not in any meaningful way.

Let's see. It's 2010. Would you say the probability of the Higgs boson existing is at least 50%?

 

[Dinwar]

Let's see. It's 2010. Would you say the probability of the Higgs boson existing is at least 50%?

What is the point of this exercise? Are you genuinely incapable of comprehending a qualitative evaluation, or are you trying to push some agenda?

 

[jt512]

What is the point of this exercise? Are you genuinely incapable of comprehending a qualitative evaluation, or are you trying to push some agenda?

What's the point of refusing. Are you genuinely incapable of comprehending a quantitative evaluation, or are you trying to push some agenda?

 

[Dinwar]

What's the point of refusing.

The level of certanty and confidence I had in my--remember, non-expert--conclusion did not justify converting it from a qualitative to a quantitative evaluation. A quantitative evaluation would give a false sense of precision that would have been entirely unwarranted by the facts of the situation.

I've answered your question--and that's an answer that would satisfy any scientist, any day. In fact, that's actually how I was trained (paleontology uses a lot of qualitative evaluations--check out the BLM's PFYC to see an example of a formal system reliant entirely on qualitative evaluations). I request that you do the same. Are you pushing an agenda, and if so what is it? Or are you genuinely incapable of comprehending or unwilling to comprehend qualitative evaluations?

 

[jt512]

The level of certanty and confidence I had in my--remember, non-expert--conclusion did not justify converting it from a qualitative to a quantitative evaluation. A quantitative evaluation would give a false sense of precision that would have been entirely unwarranted by the facts of the situation.

I've answered your question--and that's an answer that would satisfy any scientist, any day. In fact, that's actually how I was trained (paleontology uses a lot of qualitative evaluations--check out the BLM's PFYC to see an example of a formal system reliant entirely on qualitative evaluations). I request that you do the same. Are you pushing an agenda, and if so what is it? Or are you genuinely incapable of comprehending or unwilling to comprehend qualitative evaluations?

I think that there is a logically necessary correspondence between qualitative judgments of plausibilities and probabilities. It is ridiculous that you suspect that I have some sort of "agenda."

 

[Dinwar]

I think that there is a logically necessary correspondence between qualitative judgments of plausibilities and probabilities.

Ah, okay. So you simply fail to comprehend what "qualitative" means.

Please correct that issue, then we can continue this discussion in a meaningful way. Until then, it's pointless.

 

[jt512]

I've answered your question--and that's an answer that would satisfy any scientist, any day. In fact, that's actually how I was trained (paleontology uses a lot of qualitative evaluations--check out the BLM's PFYC to see an example of a formal system reliant entirely on qualitative evaluations). I request that you do the same. Are you pushing an agenda, and if so what is it? Or are you genuinely incapable of comprehending or unwilling to comprehend qualitative evaluations?

I took your suggestion and checked out the BLM's Potential Fossil Yield Classification System (PFYC). I also checked out the accompanying Guidelines for Implementing the PFYC System. Here's what they say in step 2 under Mitigation Needs Assessment: "Based on the PFYC class and any additional resource information, determine the probability of impacting significant resources."

Based on this instruction, it strikes me as strange that you would offer up this example to support your position. Moreover, you have repeatedly cited paleontology as a science that doesn't use probabilities and statistics—the bone is either there or it isn't—or however it is you like to put it. While I grant you that the bone must either be there or not, apparently paleontologists are sometimes expected to make probabilistic judgments about it.

I think that there is a logically necessary correspondence between qualitative judgments of plausibilities and probabilities. It is ridiculous that you suspect that I have some sort of "agenda."

Ah, okay. So you simply fail to comprehend what "qualitative" means.

Please correct that issue, then we can continue this discussion in a meaningful way. Until then, it's pointless.

As illustrated by your own example from the BLM, it is you who does not understand the connection between qualitative plausibilities and probabilities.

Keep digging (get it?).

 

[Daylightstar]

I took your suggestion and checked out the BLM's Potential Fossil Yield Classification System (PFYC). I also checked out the accompanying Guidelines for Implementing the PFYC System. Here's what they say in step 2 under Mitigation Needs Assessment: "Based on the PFYC class and any additional resource information, determine the probability of impacting significant resources."
...

Actually, this appears to concern land management issues where actions might impact on significant paleontological resources.
Your example does not appear to be concerning paleontology itself.

In your reply to Dinwar, you appear to ignore the actual document Dinwar referred to but talk about the word "probability" in a document concerning guidelines for land management.

In addition to that, I found Dinwar's explanation:

The level of certanty and confidence I had in my--remember, non-expert--conclusion did not justify converting it from a qualitative to a quantitative evaluation. A quantitative evaluation would give a false sense of precision that would have been entirely unwarranted by the facts of the situation.
...

..... to be extremely clear.

Why were you pushing for a quantitative probability for the Higgs boson's anticipated (by Dinwar) existence valid for 2010?
And why do you persist after Dinwar's rather clear answer?

 

[alexi_drago]

,,, and back to the OP, I thought of another analogy, since this thread is so big on them.
Two horses about to race. The pale one has been seen running private tracks and looks fast. The other however has never been in a race. Its been rumoured to have been run on a few private tracks though and said to be capable of running.

Vegas bookies give the pale horse 100:1 odds in favour of winning. What do they give the dark horse?

Maybe a better analogy would be 'a horse and a unicorn are about to race.......'

 

[Dinwar]

Here's what they say in step 2 under Mitigation Needs Assessment: "Based on the PFYC class and any additional resource information, determine the probability of impacting significant resources."

You obviously have not read the rest of the document. Otherwise, you would know that the probability in question is a qualitative one--specifically, a professional judgement. There are criteria for it, but nothing that translates into numerical probabilities. AT BEST, this guideline allows us to say "We're probably going to hit something here; we need to keep an eye on that."

Also, see the SVP's guidance for determining potential impacts to paleontological resources. They are even more explicit about the qualitative nature of this activity. I forget if the most recent version specifically called that out, but the 1995 version actually stated that it was a qualitative judgement.

Moreover, you have repeatedly cited paleontology as a science that doesn't use probabilities and statistics...

False. I brought it up as a science that recognizes the necessity to not over-state accuracy and for qualitative evaluations. We use statistics all the time; hell, we created phylogenetics, along with a number of accounting equations (we tend to trade math with accountants). I know of three ways to calculate diversity, a dozen tests against randomness, at least three ways to compare two fauna (depends on where you draw the line...)...I use PAST because it's free, but PAUP is also a popular paleontological statistical software.

However, we're also VERY keenly aware that some things simply shouldn't be quantified. There are some things that simply cannot be quantified in a meaningful way. What is the setting ideal for the preservation of Neotoma middens? I can't give you numbers, but I can describe it. What counts as a big animal? A mega one? A tiny one? You can put numbers to it, but it's fundamentally so variable that such numbers are meaningless. Even what counts as a fossil can't really be quantified--the standard answer is "anything >10ka", but in areas where interesting stuff happened at 5ka we count those too. And there's a LOT to be said for professional experience and field experience. I can't tell you the numbers to differentiate between banded rhyolite and petrified wood, but I can show you in the field.

While I grant you that the bone must either be there or not, apparently paleontologists are sometimes expected to make probabilistic judgments about it.

Okay, hot shot. You tell me: In a PFYC Class 4a sediment, what are the odds of finding a bone in each 100 yd^3? I look forward to seeing your calculations. I've discussed this with dozens of paleontologists, ranging from grad students to folks who've been doing this for 40 years, and they all say it's impossible to calculate. That's the official statement we make to the clients and regulators, by the way--there are literally hundreds of thousands of dollars riding on this. If you could give me that equation you'd save me all kinds of headaches.

As illustrated by your own example from the BLM, it is you who does not understand the connection between qualitative plausibilities and probabilities.

Nope--I understand it just fine. You just haven't actually read the document in any depth, nor do you have any understanding of how to apply it. You've latched on to one word in one clause, as Daylightstar said, and took it very much out of context.