Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

has everyone ever noticed that whenever there's a plane crash you get all these "experts" coming on TV saying things like "oh your more likely to be hit by lightning than to die in a plane crash"

This is quite pathetic because its not going to help the people who have just died is it, plus I wonder how often the occupants have been struck by lighting in their lives.

I' ve been struck by lightning twice (and have witnesses so I wasn't dreaming) but never been in a plane crash, ok I came close once but i didn't crash.

So this poses the question, are statistics utter bollocks and if not where do they get their data from.? There's been quite a few plane crashes lately dunno how many lightning strikes.

And example of statistical silliness.

Lets say the chances of being blown up by a bomb on a plane are a million to one, so the chances of there being 2 bombs on the plane is probably a billion to one. So if everyone takes their own bomb on board, safe bombs, then its going to be impossible to be blown up on that plane statistically.

Which is total rubbish, if there's a bomb on board, its going to go off no matter what you do.

Specific examples have nothing to do with accurate statistics- in fact they are completely irrelevant to them. The general extrapolation of answers from statistics- i.e. accidents on planes are very rare hence they are safe- is perfectly good reasoning and I do not understand your aversion to them.

The way to attack statistical information is not to provide specific examples but to attack the methodology. For example, air safety statistics work ion miles travelled, as other transport means do. This is unfairly biasing things in faviur of air travel. This is because every mile travelled in a car is subject to roughly the same danger, whereas in a aeroplane it is really only the take off and landing that is risky, with mid-air failures (like this one) being so rare as to be almost irrelevant.

This means very long air journeys are actually virtually as safe as very short ones, whilst a long car journey is noticably more dangerous than a short one. Which means in turn that judging accidents my miles travelled is unfairly positive to air travel, for which distance travelled is not the issue.

were you the jesus actor in the movie the passion? because he got struck twice while filming his scene while tied to the cross that was staked to a hill in a region with high lightning storms and electrical phenomenon

Originally posted by Bicnarok
has everyone ever noticed that whenever there's a plane crash you get all these "experts" coming on TV saying things like "oh your more likely to be hit by lightning than to die in a plane crash"

This is quite pathetic because its not going to help the people who have just died is it, plus I wonder how often the occupants have been struck by lighting in their lives.

I' ve been struck by lightning twice (and have witnesses so I wasn't dreaming) but never been in a plane crash, ok I came close once but i didn't crash.

So this poses the question, are statistics utter bollocks and if not where do they get their data from.? There's been quite a few plane crashes lately dunno how many lightning strikes.

And example of statistical silliness.

Lets say the chances of being blown up by a bomb on a plane are a million to one, so the chances of there being 2 bombs on the plane is probably a billion to one. So if everyone takes their own bomb on board, safe bombs, then its going to be impossible to be blown up on that plane statistically.

Which is total rubbish, if there's a bomb on board, its going to go off no matter what you do. Say, wouldn't you being hit by lightning twice not make you, subjectively, and with no logical foundation, believe that it is, indeed, more likely to be hit by it than to die in a plane crash?


Also, this Cracked article is super funny and that.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17416_7-most-bizarrely-unlucky-people-who-ever-lived.html


Also, are you joking or do you really not understand statistics at all?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
has everyone ever noticed that whenever there's a plane crash you get all these "experts" coming on TV saying things like "oh your more likely to be hit by lightning than to die in a plane crash"

This is quite pathetic because its not going to help the people who have just died is it, plus I wonder how often the occupants have been struck by lighting in their lives.

I' ve been struck by lightning twice (and have witnesses so I wasn't dreaming) but never been in a plane crash, ok I came close once but i didn't crash.

statistically, the odds are 1/2 that a coin flip will result in heads. However, I just flipped a coin 5 times, and got heads 4 times.

something being statistically probable does not mean that it must happen as opposed to things that are less probable, nor does the probability of something allow one to make specifically accurate predictions about how things must work.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
So this poses the question, are statistics utter bollocks and if not where do they get their data from.? There's been quite a few plane crashes lately dunno how many lightning strikes.

statistics are essentially averages. So, like in hockey goalies have a goals against average. If Dominik Hasek has a 1.68 goals against avg, it doesn't mean that there are no games where he lets in 7 goals. In fact, he could have a month where each game he played, 5 or more goals were scored against him, though in each other month he could have none.

Plane crashes are also international news. Lightning strikes are not.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
And example of statistical silliness.

Lets say the chances of being blown up by a bomb on a plane are a million to one, so the chances of there being 2 bombs on the plane is probably a billion to one. So if everyone takes their own bomb on board, safe bombs, then its going to be impossible to be blown up on that plane statistically.

Which is total rubbish, if there's a bomb on board, its going to go off no matter what you do.

here is the problem with that scenario. The "million to one" is about being blown up in a terrorist attack, meaning a terrorist makes a bomb, brings it on the plane, and successfully blows it up.

That only refers to the average plane, and the specific odds for any specific plane are going to be different.

There is still a million to one chance that any specific passenger might be the terrorist with the bomb, meaning there is a nearly impossible chance that each passenger might be a terrorist and have a bomb.

I don't understand how you get that everyone bringing a bomb on the plane would reduce the odds of a bombing.

Originally posted by inimalist

I don't understand how you get that everyone bringing a bomb on the plane would reduce the odds of a bombing.

That's what I was wondering, cause I am pretty sure I heard exactly that example as a joke before. Granted, not the funniest joke, still.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's what I was wondering, cause I am pretty sure I heard exactly that example as a joke before. Granted, not the funniest joke, still.

it might reduce the odds that any single individual may be the one who explodes the plane, as they now have to do it before anyone else does, but on aggregate, it would have to increase the odds.

He's basically got to that point by basing his odds already partway through the scenario, a common error. So, flipping a coin ten times and getting heads every time is unlikely, but if you already have nine heads, the chances of the next one being heads is back to just 50/50 again.

To apply that to his example- the chances of a plane blowing up when everyone on board carrying a bomb are so unlikely as to be close to impossible, so his reasoning is that if everyone on a plane brings a bomb then, statistically speaking, it won't be destroyed.

Point is, if you are ALREADY IN the scenario where everyone has brought a bomb, then the massive part of the unlikeliness has already happened. From that point on, the chances that the plane will be destroyed as opposed to normal (i.e. where NO-ONE has a bomb) are of course increased. Not that it will ever happen.

Furthermore, of course, if you deliberately set out to counter statistics (by deliberately organising it so everyone on a plane has a bomb) then you are playing from a different data from the stats anyway. Stats refer to AVERAGE flights. The chances of any given fight having every passanger with a bomb on it are as close to zero as makes no odds. The chances of a flight where you are specifically trying to make sure that everyone on board has a bomb... those odds are different.

To answer your original question- the point of the statistical annoucements is to keep accidents in proportion and point out how safe air tavel is. As I say, if you want to fight that, attack the methodology. Specific examples bring you nothng (other than odd glances from posters confused as to how you can think statistics work like that).

Originally posted by Bardock42


Also, this Cracked article is super funny and that.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17416_7-most-bizarrely-unlucky-people-who-ever-lived.html


Also, are you joking or do you really not understand statistics at all?

good link that, that Japanese bloke surviving 2 atom bomb sure is a statistic killer.

And I obviously don't understand statistics, as they appear pointless to me as anything can happen any time. I could get shot by a lunatic S.American Indian who got swept over to Europe by a freak tornado, with a blow dart covered in poison from the back of a homosexual poisonous frog... owww what was that what just hi t . m y n e c kkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Originally posted by Bicnarok
"oh your more likely to be hit by lightning than to die in a plane crash"


I guess the irony of it all is when lightening hits a plane and causes it to crash.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
And I obviously don't understand statistics, as they appear pointless to me as anything can happen any time.

The idea of statistics isn't to tell you what will happen, it's to tell you what is likely to happen based on previous things.

Some people need to learn the difference between Conditional Probability and the Memoryless Property of Probability.

Some people need to learn the difference between Conditional Probability and Memo

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The idea of statistics isn't to tell you what will happen, it's to tell you what is likely to happen based on previous things.

but it doesn't work or is very ineffective as events tend happen randomly.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
but it doesn't work or is very ineffective as events tend happen randomly.

Except they don't. Obviously it's very unlikely that people will randomly explode. However as statistics get into the middle ranges they do become less useful outside of pure mathematics and gambling.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
but it doesn't work or is very ineffective as events tend happen randomly.


Yeah, but at a difference chance. Like you said, it's possible that you could get shot by a lunatic S.American Indian who got swept over to Europe by a freak tornado, with a blow dart covered in poison from the back of a homosexual poisonous frog, but it is statistically very, very unlikely...and have you seen it happen lately?

There's not an equal chance of everything happen at any given time.

no, but i have seen life fish fall from the sky. i mean what are the odds of that?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
no, but i have seen life fish fall from the sky. i mean what are the odds of that?

if you saw it happen, 1.

Well this is a bit odd:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090605/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane;_ylt=AmBFABOSNZCxyDvdJ27f2K.CfNdF

statistics are total horse shit.

statistics of any kind are based upon a large sampling of data. Statistics count a multitude of events which each had the same outcome. They do not, however, account for the specific unique variables that occur in each and every person's life that may or may not affect the outcome, the data that is being used. In some scenerios, this is moot. Others, vastly important.

eg. a person could take into account the amount of people living in any city, also take into account the amount of car accidents in that city per year. Based on these two numbers they would give you a statiscal probability of you being in a car accident this year in that city if you're a resident. rubbish. There are so many variables and specifics not accounted for, not the least of which is your own personal driving ability. Some elderly man with poor vision who's hobby is drunk driving would have the same probability of getting into an accident as you. While everybody would indeed have the same probability of being blind sided by another driver, the difference in variables of your life as opposed to his greatly reduces your odds of being in a car accident of your own doing. This, however, would not be shown. Statistics gather data, just an equation. Each person has the same value, 1. It doesn't matter if you're blind, mentally handicapped or Chuck Norris. You're all equal, 1.

Statistics should only ever be used to demonstrate trends in an entire population. They should never be used in respect to a single individual nor a group of individuals significantly smaller than the population used to gather data from.

Let's say only 100 people per year die in plane crashes. There is no probability there in respect to single individuals. Every person who flies on a plane has the same chance of being one of those 100 every time they lift off. For an entire population, only 100 people out of 6.5 billion is pretty good odds for those that comprise it. As an individual, does you no good. You're not concerned about the other 6.5 billion, you're only concerned about 1.......and you have no more/no less of chance of going down in flames than the 100 people who did so last year.

Originally posted by KidRock
I guess the irony of it all is when lightening hits a plane and causes it to crash.

Which rarely happens because of the altitude of the plane and because the cabin is insulated. Plane travel is statistically pretty safe but hey, if someone wants to build a clean, high speed continental and intercontinental bullet train system that'll levitate on a magnetic rail, hence incurring little to no wear and tear and that'll go at incredibly fast speeds that are at the threshold of what human beings find tolerable, I'm all for it.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
statistics are total horse shit.

statistics of any kind are based upon a large sampling of data. Statistics count a multitude of events which each had the same outcome. They do not, however, account for the specific unique variables that occur in each and every person's life that may or may not affect the outcome, the data that is being used. In some scenerios, this is moot. Others, vastly important.

eg. a person could take into account the amount of people living in any city, also take into account the amount of car accidents in that city per year. Based on these two numbers they would give you a statiscal probability of you being in a car accident this year in that city if you're a resident. rubbish. There are so many variables and specifics not accounted for, not the least of which is your own personal driving ability. Some elderly man with poor vision who's hobby is drunk driving would have the same probability of getting into an accident as you. While everybody would indeed have the same probability of being blind sided by another driver, the difference in variables of your life as opposed to his greatly reduces your odds of being in a car accident of your own doing. This, however, would not be shown. Statistics gather data, just an equation. Each person has the same value, 1. It doesn't matter if you're blind, mentally handicapped or Chuck Norris. You're all equal, 1.

Statistics should only ever be used to demonstrate trends in an entire population. They should never be used in respect to a single individual nor a group of individuals significantly smaller than the population used to gather data from.

Let's say only 100 people per year die in plane crashes. There is no probability there in respect to single individuals. Every person who flies on a plane has the same chance of being one of those 100 every time they lift off. For an entire population, only 100 people out of 6.5 billion is pretty good odds for those that comprise it. As an individual, does you no good. You're not concerned about the other 6.5 billion, you're only concerned about 1.......and you have no more/no less of chance of going down in flames than the 100 people who did so last year. This seems to jump from statistics is horseshit to and that's how awesome statistics are back to that's why you can't rely on them and then back to but statistics show you your chance.

Odd, very odd.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
statistics are total horse shit.

statistics of any kind are based upon a large sampling of data. Statistics count a multitude of events which each had the same outcome. They do not, however, account for the specific unique variables that occur in each and every person's life that may or may not affect the outcome, the data that is being used. In some scenerios, this is moot. Others, vastly important.

eg. a person could take into account the amount of people living in any city, also take into account the amount of car accidents in that city per year. Based on these two numbers they would give you a statiscal probability of you being in a car accident this year in that city if you're a resident. rubbish. There are so many variables and specifics not accounted for, not the least of which is your own personal driving ability. Some elderly man with poor vision who's hobby is drunk driving would have the same probability of getting into an accident as you. While everybody would indeed have the same probability of being blind sided by another driver, the difference in variables of your life as opposed to his greatly reduces your odds of being in a car accident of your own doing. This, however, would not be shown. Statistics gather data, just an equation. Each person has the same value, 1. It doesn't matter if you're blind, mentally handicapped or Chuck Norris. You're all equal, 1.

Statistics should only ever be used to demonstrate trends in an entire population. They should never be used in respect to a single individual nor a group of individuals significantly smaller than the population used to gather data from.

Let's say only 100 people per year die in plane crashes. There is no probability there in respect to single individuals. Every person who flies on a plane has the same chance of being one of those 100 every time they lift off. For an entire population, only 100 people out of 6.5 billion is pretty good odds for those that comprise it. As an individual, does you no good. You're not concerned about the other 6.5 billion, you're only concerned about 1.......and you have no more/no less of chance of going down in flames than the 100 people who did so last year.

As an individual it does you plenty of good when looking for objective informatipon as to the safety of planes, as should be bloody obvious.

Hence broadly saying statistics are horse shit is... not intelligent comment. It's down to how you use them. Statistics are extremely useful in doing things like pointing out that you are very safe on a plane.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As an individual it does you plenty of good when looking for objective informatipon as to the safety of planes, as should be bloody obvious.

Hence broadly saying statistics are horse shit is... not intelligent comment. It's down to how you use them. Statistics are extremely useful in doing things like pointing out that you are very safe on a plane.

Unless it crashes in the ocean and is never found when your on it

Eh you've been making more typo's than me lately, are you drinking or accidentally turned the spell checker off?

Stats are averages, as has been said before. Maybe 10 crashes happen a year and I don't think it would be a reach to say that millions of flights happen a year.

You can't just pick out a few situations and say stats are bs. Although in Monopoly, I'm willing to argue that point .

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Unless it crashes in the ocean and is never found when your on it

Nah, plane journeys are still comparatively safe, though it would suck for you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, plane journeys are still comparatively safe, though it would suck for you.

walking down the street is also safe,, unless there's an asteroid about to hit your location.

Basically nothings safe nowhere, when your numbers called in its time to row that boat ashore no matter what the statistics say

Originally posted by Bicnarok
walking down the street is also safe,, unless there's an asteroid about to hit your location.

Basically nothings safe nowhere, when your numbers called in its time to row that boat ashore no matter what the statistics say

Well, that assumes that our lives are determined from the start. And even then, statistics give you a pretty good look at what you will likely die of, and what probably not.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
walking down the street is also safe,, unless there's an asteroid about to hit your location.

Basically nothings safe nowhere, when your numbers called in its time to row that boat ashore no matter what the statistics say

thats not what statistics are trying to say though

I was thinking.



Maybe someone, just for fun, could come up with the probability of dying or being injured from like...the top 20-30 external ways to die when one is just walking on the street. By external, I mean things outside the body.


I'm not sure what someone who fears dying or injured in various ways, would be called, but I guess it would still be thantophobia. Wait, there's another called Traumatophobia.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
walking down the street is also safe

Yeah, but if you factor in the path it would take for you to walk from San Franciso to New York, you'd have a higher chance of being killed along the way than if you just took a plane, statistically speaking.

It's also be faster and more comfortable.

Originally posted by Bardock42
This seems to jump from statistics is horseshit to and that's how awesome statistics are back to that's why you can't rely on them and then back to but statistics show you your chance.

Odd, very odd.

completely false but hey, feel free to quote my post and show me....



please explain Ush. How do these statistics make me any safer than anybody who has ever died in a plane crash? If statistics are indeed useful, as you say, you should be able to show how I am more safe than a bunch of dead people based upon them. Isn't not dying the ultimate goal? please explain how statistics make me safer than those who are now dead. Were the statistics that much different last year? If not, by your logic, all those people who died were completely safe on their plane.

again, statistics offer nothing to individuals because they are not based on individuals nor variable between individuals. statistics are based on data taken from a population. As such, they may be helpful in forcasting trends in a population but as an individual offer you nothing. I'm not worried about the rest of the population when I get on an airplane, I'm worried about an individual.

Statistics about plane crashes don't say your totally safe on a plane, they say you're safer on a plane than in a car. Which you are, just as your safer using a parachute than not.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
completely false but hey, feel free to quote my post and show me....


Nah

And the, very few, people that died last year don't have any bearing on how safe you are potentially if choosing a random flight.

I mean, seriously, do you assume you will die from a coconut falling on your head because a few people die of that every year? Or do you accept that it is actually statistically unlikely and has bearing on you as an individual, as in, you probably won't die of that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Statistics about plane crashes don't say your totally safe on a plane, they say you're safer on a plane than in a car. Which you are, just as your safer using a parachute than not.

doesn't make it true. I'm going to assume that just about everybody who has died in a plane crash drove a car. Most probably drove a car many times a day, decade after decade. How was flying in a plane safer than driving a car? They didn't die from car crashes, they died from plane crashes. How, again, were they safer flying?

again, statistics may say that a population is safer flying than driving but that has no relevance to a single individual.

Originally posted by Evil Dead

again, statistics may say that a population is safer flying than driving but that has no relevance to a single individual.

It does actually though. It very much influences the outcome of your life.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does actually though. It very much influences the outcome of your life.

please explain. this goes to Ush, sym. chaos, anybody else.

how does any car crash or plane crash directly relate to me anytime I drive my car or fly in a plane. They do not. There is no connection at all.

for statistics to be useful at all to an individual, every event would have to be directly related to every other. It is not. The universe operates through chaos. Statistics are for those people scared of chaos, to make them feel safer. No car crash in history as an affect on my probability of getting in a car accident today when I drive to work. No plane crash in history has an affect on me nor the plane I am flying on. It's random, beautiful chaos. If it does, it does. If it don't, it don't. Nothing you can do about it. No need for completely unrelated numbers to make you feel safer.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
please explain. this goes to Ush, sym. chaos, anybody else.

how does any car crash or plane crash directly relate to me anytime I drive my car or fly in a plane. They do not. There is no connection at all.

for statistics to be useful at all to an individual, every event would have to be directly related to every other. It is not. The universe operates through chaos. Statistics are for those people scared of chaos, to make them feel safer. No car crash in history as an affect on my probability of getting in a car accident today when I drive to work. No plane crash in history has an affect on me nor the plane I am flying on. It's random, beautiful chaos. If it does, it does. If it don't, it don't. Nothing you can do about it. No need for completely unrelated numbers to make you feel safer.
Wait, so what are you trying to sell me. When you go on a plane is it determined whether it crashes or not? Is there a 50-50 to you that it's going to crash, or is the likelyhood that it happens, though influenced by many different factors somewhere around the statistical likelyhood?

I mean, what do you believe here, like I said earlier, you seem to flip flop from concept to concept, to me, so could you clarify?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wait, so what are you trying to sell me. When you go on a plane is it determined whether it crashes or not? Is there a 50-50 to you that it's going to crash, or is the likelyhood that it happens, though influenced by many different factors somewhere around the statistical likelyhood?

I mean, what do you believe here, like I said earlier, you seem to flip flop from concept to concept, to me, so could you clarify?

what are you babbling about? nobody said anything about pre-determination. nobody said anything about 50/50.

you did mention earlier that I flip flop, I asked you to quote an example, you ignored it. Either English is not your first language or you are a fan of the most idiotic debating tactic ever devised, just make shit up and pretend your opposition actually said it....even though the audience, or forum can hear/read for themselves to know it untrue.

what needs clarification here? statistics have nothing to do with an individual and are therefore not applicable to an individual. statistics only suggest tendencies in large populations as large populations are used for the data that statistic is based on. If there are 100 car crashes every year for 10 years, you could surmise there will probably be about 100 crashes this year. That has abosuletly nothing to do with individuals...unless you can predict exactly who these car crashes will affect. 1 person may have 100 car accidents or 100 people could each have one. Even if the latter, you have no way of knowing which 100 so you are just as likely as every person who dies in a car accident to have one. This does nothing for an individual. What good is your stat if you're one of those who die? none.

if English isn't your first language, what is. I will try to find an online translator. If it is, quit just making shit up because you're bored.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
what are you babbling about? nobody said anything about pre-determination. nobody said anything about 50/50.

you did mention earlier that I flip flop, I asked you to quote an example, you ignored it. Either English is not your first language or you are a fan of the most idiotic debating tactic ever devised, just make shit up and pretend your opposition actually said it....even though the audience, or forum can hear/read for themselves to know it untrue.

what needs clarification here? statistics have nothing to do with an individual and are therefore not applicable to an individual. statistics only suggest tendencies in large populations as large populations are used for the data that statistic is based on. If there are 100 car crashes every year for 10 years, you could surmise there will probably be about 100 crashes this year. That has abosuletly nothing to do with individuals...unless you can predict exactly who these car crashes will affect. 1 person may have 100 car accidents or 100 people could each have one. Even if the latter, you have no way of knowing which 100 so you are just as likely as every person who dies in a car accident to have one. This does nothing for an individual. What good is your stat if you're one of those who die? none.

if English isn't your first language, what is. I will try to find an online translator. If it is, quit just making shit up because you're bored.

Just answer my question, bro.

Do you believe that when you go on a plane it is absolutely random whether it is going to fall, or do the factors that cause the statistics to be the way they are, also have bearing on you going on this plane?

if we were to count all the planes that have ever crashed against how many were build of each model what would be the odds or statistic?


would it be higher or lower to what they are now?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if we were to count all the planes that have ever crashed against how many were build of each model what would be the odds or statistic?


would it be higher or lower to what they are now?

I find this question very confusing, I think its the last sentence that causes it "would it be higher or lower to what they are now?"

what is the it, and when is then compared to now?

?

it = statistics of plane safety

when = per model/make of each plane throughout the history of aviation.

?


Maybe?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just answer my question, bro.

Do you believe that when you go on a plane it is absolutely random whether it is going to fall, or do the factors that cause the statistics to be the way they are, also have bearing on you going on this plane?

well, there's the first time you've asked one. happy to.

the fallacy in your question, however, is that there are no factors that cause a statistic. Statistics only show end results in numerical form, not the hundreds or thousands of variables that come together (chaos) that affected the end result....i.e. causing a plane crash.

when you go on a plane, it may fall.....it may not. there is no number that can determine if it will or not. no number accounts for the variables that randomly combine to result in a crash. no past plane crash in the history of the universe can be used to determine a probability of a plane to crash as every other plane crash in the history of the universe had a distinctly seperate set of variables that came together to result in a crash. there is your answer.

Any time you get on a plane, the probability of you crashing is the exact same as the probability of some guy who died in a plane crash last year crashing and dying. It's the same probability as every other person on earth who engages in air travel every day and never have a problem. That probability is non-existant. The universe is just a bunch of matter flying around bumping into one another. Sometimes these interactions cause you to go down in flames, sometimes it doesn't. No way to tell beforehand.

Originally posted by Evil Dead

the fallacy in your question, however, is that there are no factors that cause a statistic. Statistics only show end results in numerical form, not the hundreds or thousands of variables that come together (chaos) that affected the end result....i.e. causing a plane crash.

Again, you say two opposing things imo. You say statistics don't have factors influencing them, then you just say that there are variables that do. Could you clarify what you mean?


Originally posted by Evil Dead
when you go on a plane, it may fall.....it may not. there is no number that can determine if it will or not. no number accounts for the variables that randomly combine to result in a crash. no past plane crash in the history of the universe can be used to determine a probability of a plane to crash as every other plane crash in the history of the universe had a distinctly seperate set of variables that came together to result in a crash. there is your answer.

But they are not necessarily separate and they are certainly not random. That's why statistics stay similar, and that's why they can tell you probabilities (as you yourself go into in the next paragraph, again swinging around) and that's why they matter to you.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
Any time you get on a plane, the probability of you crashing is the exact same as the probability of some guy who died in a plane crash last year crashing and dying. It's the same probability as every other person on earth who engages in air travel every day and never have a problem. That probability is non-existant. The universe is just a bunch of matter flying around bumping into one another. Sometimes these interactions cause you to go down in flames, sometimes it doesn't. No way to tell beforehand.

I wouldn't say it is necessarily the same, but without knowledge of the factors, like you say, it makes sense to assume the probability is similar (probably something along the lines of what statistics say). Then you say the probability is non-existent, what's that supposed to mean now. Do you think that everything happening is random, that it has an equal possibility? I mean, you obviously don't...you think it is less likely that an asteroid hits you than that you are going to poop today...so, why the distaste for statistics, which show what these probabilities have caused so far, which you then can make judgements from. If 100% of ships had sank last year, would you just jam your thumb up your ass and sing "Lalala I will go on a ship, cause it's just random lalala"?

No, you'd be like, "****, maybe I not go on ships, they seem to sink an awful lot, possibly cause some variables got together to **** it up..."

So, again, contradicting yourself left and right...and obviously saying things you don't actually live by. No one is denying that Statistics can be horseshit, but the field of Statistics some of the samples are just dead accurate, and do say things about your life.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
No way to tell beforehand.

Statistics are not there to tell you what is going to happen before it happens. It is incorrect to expect them to.

Statistics are neither fortune tellers or crystal balls.

Originally posted by inimalist
Statistics are not there to tell you what is going to happen before it happens. It is incorrect to expect them to.

Statistics are neither fortune tellers or crystal balls. They can be used to make predictions though.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if we were to count all the planes that have ever crashed against how many were build of each model what would be the odds or statistic?


would it be higher or lower to what they are now?

that would be less effective, as a plane with 600 flights and 1 crash and one with 1 flight and one crash would have the same probability of crashing.

The best would be to take each make and model of plane, tally each flight (or better, tally total flight miles) then average it against the number of crashes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They can be used to make predictions though.

totally

but a prediction is different than knowing beforehand

I think stats rock, but they aren't useful in the way some posters seem to think they should be

the poster of this thread along with evil dead are showing a profound lack of understanding on what statistics ARE. they are not SUPPOSED to show any causal connetions. they are only there to judge coarses of action when we are NOT aware of the "thousands of variables" which lead to events. ofcourse, i cud sabotage a plane and then get in or choose to fly in the oldest and least best kept planes and lo and behold, more times than not, i will end up dead or have my plane destroyed. that however, does NOT mean that the statistics of plane crashes are wrong, it just means they dont apply to me because i chose to add a CONFOUNDING variable instead of going with the RANDOM variables.

there are also things like spread, mean, mode, median and mean variance to consider. as well as the qi squared etc.