...seriously? The Monty Hall problem doesn't fit common sense?
You had a one in three chance of picking the right door, and if you picked the right door, you picked the right door; if you didn't, you didn't. As long as the goat would always come up, it's irrelevant. No sophisticated math is needed.
do we make more decisions in our day to day lives in a lab or without a lab? just curious. i mean then you can tell me how useful this is to the average person. then put aside your bias deciding which is less or more the average type of person, the person watching this video or the person living their lives by this video.
@dave13sci what you're talking about I suppose is the "punctuated equilibrium" model, where animals' evolutionary change is primarily motivated by sudden changes, and barely evolves otherwise. I find the punctuated gradualism more believable, but I'm no expert.
If I take an arbitrary curved surface, it can have minimums and maximums, and those minimums and maximums can be local. Let this surface be an analogy for fitness.
A marble placed on this surface will tend to roll downhill. Let this represent an organism evolving to a position of greater fitness. Once the marble finds a well, it will tend to stay there unless the surface landscape changes. If that change pushes it out of its well, it will continue rolling.
@rkyeun but it seems to me that isolates a single organism out, when in fact all organisms are evolving at once, it seems like the curve is ever-changing, albeit minuscule ones, so the marble is always rolling. I admit I'm not an expert (yet) but that's how I looked at it.
The analogy I listed has limits of course, as all analogies do. The presence of other organisms are other marbles in other spots, and the interactions between competitors, predators, and prey are themselves part of the environment and have to be taken into account in that curved surface.
The point is, that crocodilians have been doing the same thing (wait patiently then ambush things at water's edge) for a VERY long time, because that is a very stable well.
@rkyeun And when you talk about Crocodile you can also talk about insects like dragonflies, centipedes, or horseshoe crabs whose basic structure hasn't changed in a very long time...I see...
How does an atom evolve into something living? Living things can't come from non living things correct? No matter how long I wait, (if I'm alive forever) no part of the rock will evolve into a living thing. Yes the atoms that come off might become part of a living thing, but not without something already living.
Another good one is the 4 aces card trick. You take 4 aces and mix them up face down. You then flip one over and try to match the color. At first it seems like a 50/50 chance of success, the reality is the true game starts after you flip one card over. You then have a 1 in 3 chance of matching the color, those are the actual odds.
Re Monty's Paradox: You will pick the car one out of three times. Therefore, once out of three times Monty will pick one of two goats. So once out of three times, when you've already picked the car, you lose if you change your choice, But the other two times when you don't pick the car, he will pick a goat, leaving the only other unchosen door the car. So two out of three times you will win if you change your choice. It's not obvious or intuitive at first but you can logically work it out.
The failure of people to correctly solve the goat-car-door problem is NOT a fault of "common sense" but of lazy insufficient mathematical modelling. I got it right the first time I went through it, because I had already understand that the definition of probability depends upon someone knowing or not knowing something. So, including what Monty Hall knows, we can get the right answer.
Same too in higher mathematics. You would not believe the strange difficult-to-comprehend concepts in pure mathematics, such as the existence of non-measurable sets.
Just enlarge the numbers from 3 doors up to 100 doors and you may pick one, and after that the host will open 98 of the doors you did not chose, do you still think you have a 50% change?
No you still have your initial choice of 1% change, as there are at least 98 wrong doors left in those you dident chose, it is irrelevant if 98 of those 99 are opened.
so changing alwase switches you from 1% towards 99% change
The monty hall problem is best explained by looking at the initial choice, you divide the doors into 2 groups 1 with only one door (1/3) and the second with 2 doors (2/3), so its alwase in you best intrest to get the group with most doors as there the chance is bigger (2/3 against 1/3)
It does not matter if the host reveals one of the goats in the two doors as in any group of two doors there is alwase one goat, making the switch alwase moves you from the 1/3 change towards the 2/3 change.
The monty hall problem is best explained by looking at the initial choice, you divide the doors into 2 groups 1 with only one door (1/3) and the second with 2 doors (2/3), so its alwase in you best intrest to get the group with most doors as there the chance is bigger (2/3 against 1/3)
It does not matter if the host reveals one of the goats in the two doors as in any group of two doors there is alwase one goat, making the switch alwase moves you from the 1/3 change towards the 2/3 change.
actually i love to think about atoms, and there movements. aswell as the size of the universe, the distance between stars. i guess you are just not capible of such things, and thats too bad because its awsome if you really think about it.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices.... we have to learn to discard what common sense tells us in favor of empirical evidence and rational deduction"
@joe3123 The best way to get the Monty Hall problem is to play some imaginary games (eg with a dice to chose the room) and you play the role of Monty Hall, not the contestant.
What soon becomes apparent is that most of the time the contestants first choice is wrong. And, whenever that happens, you as Monty Hall have no choice about which door to open, it has to be the other wrong door...
My problem with the MHP is that the only reason the "common sense" answer isn't immediately correct is because of the additional condition that the host knows what is behind which door and will always choose a goat. That's why the entire thing is not just a simple 1/3 chance, because he narrows it down. Other problems can be made if you change the conditions under which the decisions are made, but that's simply making a new problem with a new probability.
7:15 Now that's interesting: broccoli, cabbage, and kale, are cultivated from wild mustard. I never knew that, certainly went against my common sense! :)
@dannywizz "Now, why do we call it THE ART OF WAR and not the SCIENCE OF WAR?"
Who are "we"? Sun Tzu? There's plenty of science in both warfare and strategy(and most art for that matter). Even if you disregard the science behind the weaponry and armor itself. Anyway, game theory is just a tiny branch of mathematics and just one of a huge array of tools scientists can use to explain things if it happens to be a useful approach.
@Gnomefro The truth is that it is both a SCIENCE and an ART. The subject is a bit more complex than saying that do this and that and you will have that outcome. Even the best teams can lose against the worst team because of the ART of strategy.
Weaponry and Armor ARE NOT STRATEGY.
I just find this video amusing if not outright silly!
@truthseeker010101 "Smoking cannabis helps stimulate brain cells firing, and growing which in turn does wonders for perception, and conceiving this universe."
Hmm... I see, and that's why potheads are perceived by others as exceptionally slow and out of focus? In reality, cannabis actually inhibits the function of a whole range of neurotransmitters and has severe effects on memory. A substance that works that broadly can never be without side effects - whatever benefit you claim to see in it.
Even though I understand the principles of lift, thrust, and drag, when I look at a 747 sitting on the runway I can't imagine how it's possible for it to fly. It just makes no sense!
The scientists' acceptance of the big bang may be an example of self-delusion, strictly a defense mechanism to allow them to explain something they don't actually understand.
The title of this video could be revised. Surely common sense can often be misleading, but to claim that common sense is "worthless" in science has got to be erroneous. "Logical deduction" is an extension of common sense. I'm sure Einstein would have disputed the claim that common sense is "worthless".
None of us has ever witnessed the level of changes that occur over billions of years. So we invent a backwards trail toward some non-existant point of origin, and call it the Big Bang.
Scientists have mapped out the big bang by using "common sense" to retrace backwards in time from current observed astronomy to a hypothetical "logical conclusion", which is in fact unobservable as well as unprovable.
Its so simple that its hard to believe that when I first encountered this problem I was so certain it was a 50/50 chance.
You have a 2 in 3 chance of picking a goat.
Therefor the host has a 2 in 3 chance of opening the only other door with a goat.
Therefor there is a 2 in 3 chance that the car is behind the other door.
I think the problem is that we tend to focus on the chance of our choice being right (i.e. 1/3 chance of picking the car) instead of considering the more likely scenario.
If you remove common sense, NONSENSE comes in. This is exactly what the seculars want to do. They know that if they can keep you from exercising your critical thinking, they can make you believe in anything, like evolution and abiogenesis. Btw, shrimp is yummy, I agree, but they are also bottom feeders.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Go ahead then and "play the game". Evolution is an evil thing. Science is great, but bad science is bad science, a.k.a. evolution. Get away from that stuff, it has no facts to support it.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Reality check: reality is real and evolution is not. Ok, evidence that favors evolution. Like what? When did a fish turn into a man? Don't bother with "micro evolution", I do accept that and it's not evolution, it's adaptation. The evolution that I am talking about is like the crocoduck and stuff like that. Evolution is evil as well because it crushes the weak so that the strong can go on.... where in nature do you see that? Only in humans.
@compgrad1 "Evolution is evil as well because it crushes the weak so that the strong can go on.... where in nature do you see that? Only in humans." Please tell me you are joking??? What planet are you living on? Have you ever even considered for a second the life of another animal?
@MomoTheBellyDancer in my translation the word evolution is used. It is not a strech by any means that the nature of the universe be called evolution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You believe in 13.7 billion years? Well if that was true then the Milky Way would only have spun around 5 times, less then 5 times. Don't you think if someting is moving around are 220 million miles per hour it probably has spun more then I can count on one hand? The Universe could be 100 quadtillion years old. The truth is that we don't know, and we can speculate as I just did. People accuse religious people of not being open minded, I think science isn't open minded enough today.
Perhaps the Universe is 4 minutes old. Perhaps the Universe is eternal. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the Big Bang appears to have occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and no extant information can reach us beyond that boundary. Scientists not only accept this and know it, but they've actually mapped out the various consequences.
I think you'll see the imaginations of scientists if you read science fiction. Now read religious fiction....
@C0nc0rdance what if you make you're common sense tailored to the scientific info you've so rounded yourself you're entire life? after watching a documentary a long time about micro fractures in metals that caused a whole fucking train to derail in i think it was Germany i have 0 problems comprehending things like the grand canyon or the sand in the sahara desert being the result of thermal contraction and dilation of rock until it brakes
@C0nc0rdance or an even better and more down to earth example: the earth going around the sun is totally intuitive to me; or it being spherical; are you kidding me? how many times have i talked with people on the net on the other side of the earth? none of that makes sense unless to think of the earth as round and going around the sun;
i'll tell what though: one thing i really can't imagine is how a photon "sees" the universe…. the entire universe for them is a single surface? ….
@truthseeker010101 "The Universe could be 100 quadtillion years old. The truth is that we don't know"
You can make statements like that about anything but the strong evidence is that our universe of space-time started expanding from a size of zero 13.7bn years ago.
Belief is not the point, it is what the evidence shows. Nobody in science was expecting an expanding universe, the default view was that it was static. The evidence showed otherwise. We are not open minded, we follow evidence.
@chrisofnottingham God exists in all that you study to prove God does not exist. God is your conscience, your logic, your reasoning in debates, and God is all things.
If the universe was only 13.7 billion years, an arbitrary number! then the milky way would have spun less then 5 times in that time. My science professor said he liked my hypothisis, and it deserves further study. God exists and your only reason for being a non beleiver is you hate christians?
@truthseeker010101 If you want to believe in your ideas that's up to you. The point I was making is that science is only about the weight of evidence. 13.7bn years is primarily based on the Hubble constant which is obtained from the observed redshift of objects with known luminosity.
We may all be a dream in Krishna's slumber but science only follows evidence - that is what science is. So until there is evidence for Krishna he will remain outside of science, even if he is our Lord.
@truthseeker010101 I " which direction from earth does the red light go? I know the answer, I just wondor what your answer is."
I'm not really sure what you are asking . All light from Earth travels away from the Earth, all light arriving at Earth travels toward it.
If you mean what direction are the various sources of light moving then the answers is that nothing really moves anywhere. Instead, more space appears between objects at the large scale so that everything gets further apart.
"If the universe was only 13.7 billion years, an arbitrary number! then the milky way would have spun less then 5 times in that time"
Actually, the Milky Way is estimated to be 39 Galactic years old, which means that the sun has rotated 39 times around the galactic center since then. One rotation takes 225 to 250 million terrestrial years.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "the Milky Way is estimated to be 39 Galactic years old, which means that the sun has rotated 39 times around the galactic center since then. One rotation takes 225 to 250 million terrestrial years."
@chrisofnottingham The equation is written differently then the problem proposed. It is illogical to begin with if the equation does not match the question. I guess the person who made this is illogical, and so is everyone who doesn't see the equation does not match the question proposed. Good luck fooling the human mind! Jah Lives
@truthseeker010101 Why are you saying that a speed that seems large for you implies there must have been many rotations? Your 'speculation' is unguided and unscientific. The age of the universe is based on several consistent valid dating techniques.
In addition, our place in the Milky Way is on a 225My cycle. At that rate assumed constant, the number of cycles would be (13.7*10^9)/(225*10^6)=60. If the rotation has been slowing, it would be greater. Your calculations and understanding are poor.
@truthseeker010101 The most precise measurement of the age of the Universe, ca 13.7 Gy, made by NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. I urge you to read ( astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age [D O T,] html) and to understand its content. I cannot give you much guidance into actually understanding the cosmological and atomic dating of the universe. For that it takes intellect - more than I can hope to provide to you in my current inebriated state. Good night.
@JaySmith91 I am fimilar with it, it's quite amazing the probe still works isn't it? I don't disagree with science, I beleive it can be exponded on, which is the nature of science so whats the problem? you don't like me thinking ? Should I just take what I'm taught as truth? I think not. I am skeptical of all things, but I study them. I like that you know all the facts though, you do your thing, I'll keep thinking how I think thanks. One love
@truthseeker010101 In a sense youre right that we don't know. We know that the universe is expanding. We take the expansion and we work it back and we get that the universe reaches singularity at roughly 13.7 Billion years. So what we can expect is to not find any light reaching beyond 14.7 billion light years. Science is open minded. If new data presents itself we change our minds. Religion is dogmatic which is the opposite of change.
@truthseeker010101 Science is based on evidence, If you were to come up with evidence that goes against what we know, then show it. So far theres is one rule that contributes to the big bang. If Galaxies today are moving away from us, then at one point, in the past, they must have been closer. So when smarter then I, people calculated this, they found it to be 13.7 billion years from when all galaxies seemed to have been in the same place at the same time.
The equation is written differently then the problem proposed. It is illogical to begin with if the equation does not match the question. I guess the person who made this is illogical, and so is everyone who doesn't see the equation does not match the question proposed. Good luck fooling the human mind! LOL
I smoke cannabis to stimulate my brain cells. One Love Jah Lives
@MomoTheBellyDancer My professors, my wife, my family, and friends would all call you ignorant. I have a peer reviewed paper thats ready for you to read and shed your ignorance... when your ready
Hey, that's actually what I saw in some of my fellow students... Trying to rebute some findings of a paper for example with previous knowledge. What they are missing is the NEW knowledge that was established with a publication of a paper. I really do have trouble explaining it to them...
I find Vos Savant's solution the easiest way to think of the monty hall problem:
Imagine that your initial guess is correct, which will happen 1/3 of the time. In this case, switching will ALWAYS mean a loss. However, in the other 2/3 of cases when you DON'T initially choose the correct door, by switching you will ALWAYS move to the winning door. Therefore, by following this policy of switching when given the choice, you will win 2/3 of the time in the long run.
When you stand on the ground it is pushing you upwards with a force equal to your weight. I think most people don't really believe Newton's 3rd law in this common situation.
The proof is actually very simple and very logical. Your first choice has 1/3 odds of being correct. If you are correct and change your decision you will always be wrong. If however you were initially wrong and change your decision you will always be right. Thus there are 2/3 odds that you will be correct when you change your decision. If you stick with your initial decision you obviously have 1/3 odds of being right.
Sorry I think I said my problem not clear enough: I don't have problems understanding the Birthday problem, its really not hard. My problem is the use of the word "only" he uses it like 1/2 is LESS then 1/30. That was all
While talking about the "Birthday-Problem" you said something like "The chances are not 1 in 30 they are ONLY 1 in 2". This really bothers me, because it seems like you also had a problem to understand the quantities
@eirh To put it another way... I think you might be getting confused with the idea 'how many people should be in the room for them ALL to share a birthday with at least one other person in the room?'... thats a lot of people... you'd need a hotel convention centre for that!
Only 50% of them will share a birthday if you had 730 people in that room! To have at least a 99% chance you need a room with roughly 25,000 people!
I was confused about the door conflict at first also. It actually did an experiment with some playing cards, and discovered that its best to go with your second choice. And I found that this works with other gambles in life as well.
I have a friend who likes to say "If everyone thinks you're a crackhead, then you might be a crackhead." Of course he changes crackhead for other things, but his point is that if many people think you are a certain way, then you probably are that way. I think thats bullshit. Just because its a common idea, doesnt make it right.
Enjoyable vid, but the game show thing bothers me.
What you're saying is that when you have 2 choices, door 1 or door 2, after eliminating door 3 as a goat, it is better to switch from the first door that you originally chose?
Seems like if you run this simulation that over time 1/2 the cars will be behind the door you originally chose, half the time behind the door you could switch to.
I'm with you, it drove me nuts at first, then it drove me insane when I accepted that I was wrong but couldn't see why... I can only say that you have to stick with it, check the Wikipedia page which is well written and clear, and that the fact that Monty Hall knows which door has the goat makes all the difference in the world. If he didn't, you would be absolutely correct. The probabilities switch from 1-in-3 to 1-in-2.
@Highlyskeptical 2/3 of the time your initial choice will be wrong. Everyone of those times the host will be required to open the other goat. The remaining door is always going to be the correct choice. Therefore your switch will be correct 2/3 of the time. The only time the switch will be incorrect was the 1/3 time that you chose correctly on the first occasion.
@Highlyskeptical The way to get to grips with this old chestnut is to play the role of the game show host and then play the game many times with the contestant always swapping.
In the one third of cases were they are correct, you open either of the wrong doors and they swap to the other wrong door. However you soon realise that whenever they start by picking a wrong door (2/3 of the time), you are forced to open the other wrong door, leaving only the winning door which they then swap to.
@Highlyskeptical Probability is conditional, not absolute. If you roll an unbiased die (in an unbiased manner), the probability of getting a 6 is 1/6; but if you peek at a (randomly selected) corner of the die before actually looking at it, and see a dot, the probability of having rolled a 6 increases (to 1/4, in fact). In the Monty Hall problem, Monty has information that you initially don't, and imparts it to you when he offers you the switch. That information affects the probability.
@Highlyskeptical ... but not in the way you'd expect: the information is completely about the other door, and not the one you've picked. When you picked a goat initially, Monty effectively tells you which door has the car behind it; but when you picked the car initially, you don't get information.
@Highlyskeptical Here is a variation which has the exact same principal but magnifies why switching is better. Suppose you have 1000 doors and all but 1 have goats and there is a car behind 1. So same setup more doors. You will almost certainly pick originally a goat. Now the host opens every door except the one you picked and one other one. Do you switch? Of course, almost certainly now the other one has the car since your original pick almost certainly didn't.
@Highlyskeptical I know you posted this a while back, but going to reply.
Imagine you are on the show, and you guess door 1. Host says, do you want Door 1, or to have BOTH Door 2 and Door 3? Of course you would switch, 2/3 chance. You KNOW one of those two doors has a goat. He just opens up the goat one for you.
Imagine 1,000,000 doors. You pick one. What is the chance that you actually picked the right door? I would switch for the 999,999 other doors, and let the host open all but 1 for me.
While I understand the point of the video and agree with it, I must nonetheless disagree with what it claims. Common sense is a miracle of inductive reasoning in its own right.
What I -do- agree with is that common sense should not be given priority over scientific evidence, as common sense regrettably -does- make mistakes every so often. That, however is not to say it is useless; it holds an awesome power in its own right, but this power must be verified.
@DanteDouglas Common Sense is the amazing talent nature gives all living things. For example, if you saw someone throw a fresh egg at a tree, you know the egg is going to break and run down the tree. No-one has to teach you. However, if twenty corrupt policemen insisted that it IS possible for a fresh egg to pass straight through a tree, and your friends all agreed with them, that is politicized "science". 100 yrs ago it was "common knowledge" that tooth decay was caused by a "tooth worm""
@kaferere You only know that the egg will break because you have observed eggs breaking relatively easily many times before. if it was a glass bottle you would understand that the bottle might not break because glass is tougher than eggshell.
common sense is simply rationalized intuition based on preconcieved bias, so what do you do when you have two oposing views based on nothing but intuition?
@kaferere If you had never seen an egg before, nor a tree...nor experienced gravity...or force...all the common sense in the world would not prepare you for the NEW experience of 'broken egg'.
This is why many people are confused by things they have never seen... so the question 'can I put my hand on a stand made of material less dense than say sugar puffs! then light a bonfire underneath the stand...without damaging the stand or burning myself?' well, whats the answer?
The Monty Hall Problem bothered me when I first heard it, because it wasn't explained right. This video is better, because the problem only works if you know that Monty Hall has knowledge and motivation when he opens a door.
This video is ridiculous. Common sense would give you the correct answers every time EXCEPT if you were bloody stupid. This narrator assumes that you ARE bloody stupid just because HE is! Which means he has a 50% chance of being right. What an arrogant ass he is for making the assumption that you are as stupid as he. As regards science being the "be all and end all", always remember that science has only ever proved that our imagination was correct 50 yrs ago. Science is 50yrs behind art.
The problem is that common sense, by definition, is the very same concept as an appeal to popularity; after all, common sense is what most people hold to be true without research or study being deemed necessary. But it's nice to see you actually making a minimum amount of effort to present a counterargument to the video's points--oh wait, you didn't whatsoever.
By the way, is science behind art by 50 years in terms of medical and technological developments? Didn't think so.
@SeruQuik I'm afraid you have fallen into the same arrogant trap as the maker of this video, i.e. YOU have decided what constitutes common sense. The generally held "everyone knows that" mantra is usually always myth and whilst many believe it (you for one) this is not what rational people hold to be common sense at all. You arrogantly assume that what YOU hold to be "common sense" and what I hold to be "common sense" as the same thing. WRONG. Logic is King, not obedience to text or politic.
I didn't realize referencing Merriam-Webster's definition of "common sense" qualified as (1) me making the determination as to what constitutes common sense and (2) me being arrogant. For someone who states "Logic is king," you jumped to one heck of a conclusion there, friend. You also mention the "everyone knows that" mantra when the definition of common sense I pulled referred to what "most," not "all" people hold to be true. There's a significant difference.
@SeruQuik As I said, you're hooked on obedience to text, hence your quote from a book. You've given up using the brain nature gave you and instead seek to qualify yourself by parroting second-hand pseudo-science to impress your peers with.There's little point in talking to someone who doesn't think logic is as valid as text, which has to be constantly revised because it is forced to move with the politic of the day, not "at rest" with the eternity of logic. Stay healthy, Bye.
I first heard of the goat-car problem from 21. It seemed wrong at the time, but I was able to wrap my head around it using an analogy with cards.
Say your looking for the ace of diamonds. Your partner fans the deck to you and you randomly pick one without knowing what it is. Your partner goes through it and knowingly picks one and sets the rest aside. He says "One of our two cards is the Ace of Diamonds. Which do you think it is?" The answer is obvious.
A nice video until it got to the point. Evolution is rubbish. Has always been and will always be. It's a religion, belief system and totally unscientific.
@the0fart0machine "A nice video until it got to the point. Evolution is rubbish. Has always been and will always be. It's a religion, belief system and totally unscientific."
Were you serious? Because if you were I can send you a large amount of detailed information with specific sources....if you are interested. Just FYI, ignoring the evidence doesn't change anything. The evidence is still there...it didn't disappear because it is ignored. Ignoring evidence simply yields ignorance.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Can you define what a species is? You can send what you like, the evidence for ToE is well dodgy. Can you explain why evolutionists have lied in the name of evolution?
@the0fart0machine Evolution is agreed upon by the vast majority of relevant scientists (completely dwarfing any contradictory viewpoint)....and is also frequently utilized in numerous fields of scientific study. I will post a few (and I have many more) examples of exactly how evolution is ONLY rejected when it conflicts with religious bias.
@the0fart0machine James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
@the0fart0machine In fact, EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
@the0fart0machine Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95–99% depending on the primate.
@the0fart0machine The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
@the0fart0machine "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
@the0fart0machine Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc.
These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with a 2,000 year old holy book.
Don't forget Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Luckily, AGW is disputed only by a few lone tea party nutjobs who inflate their numbers on the internet.
@the0fart0machine The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
@the0fart0machine Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and has stood up against attempts to prove it false. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
I didn't understand the goat problem at first because I thought the gameshow host picked two doors completely randomly. But having to pick one with a goat the first time means that the probabilities in one instance carry on to the next. You have a 1/3 chance at the car at first, but because you picked it, it means that it's probability remains the same whereas the remaining doors are reduced by half.
I also came up with the equation for birthday probability all by myself after I first heard it
Excellent video !!! I have tried to look at situations more scientifically these days. It may "feel" counter-intuitive or harder to follow, but it really is the best way. It is amazing how statistics aren't always what we think they are or should be. I still don't understand the door choice switch being a better odds ??? Common sense really isn't what we are conditioned to think it is...if that makes sense.
I wouldn't say that common sense is completely worthless in science, sure there are few findings that contradict it, but there are vastly greater number of findings that are in agreement with common sense rather than oppose it.
Interestingly, evolution is both scientifically accurate AND consistent with "common sense". Evolution is based on some incredibly simple observations, and follows logically from the fundamental principles of how life works (namely reproduction with variation), AND it's supported by a mountain of evidence.
To me, it doesn't seem Creationists deny Evolution because it violates common sense, but because it defies dogma.
However, the point of this video is correct. Common sense only goes so far.
For those of you commenting that you don't believe that you are better off switching, play the game with a friend with some cards. That's what I did with a someone who didn't believe it. I used to read Parade and I remember the angry letters. I really liked that Marilyn Savant.
Empirical evidence is the basis for common sense. Studies are the basis of "proof." Now can science prove that this pack of full-flavored Pall Mall 100's combined with these 8 pints of Bud Light will kill me instantly? The US surgeon general would say yes, but I'll need empirical proof.
According to your video, Common sense is the same as intuition, but I would define them differently: Common sense are the known premices about how the world works, while Intuition is reaching a conclusion without using the process of logic.
This is a great video! I think you could have used more physics to demonstrate just how detrimental common sense can be, but not everyone knows enough to get the more in depth ones =]
I've seen the car problem before, and it is interesting, every time I think I've got it, I try thinking it through from the beginning, and all of a sudden, I'm back to square 1...
...seriously? The Monty Hall problem doesn't fit common sense?
You had a one in three chance of picking the right door, and if you picked the right door, you picked the right door; if you didn't, you didn't. As long as the goat would always come up, it's irrelevant. No sophisticated math is needed.
IoEstasCedonta 6 hours ago
do we make more decisions in our day to day lives in a lab or without a lab? just curious. i mean then you can tell me how useful this is to the average person. then put aside your bias deciding which is less or more the average type of person, the person watching this video or the person living their lives by this video.
akpret 3 weeks ago
"Share with us in the comments your favorite non-intuitive scenario that is nevertheless true."
There is only one electron.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@dave13sci what you're talking about I suppose is the "punctuated equilibrium" model, where animals' evolutionary change is primarily motivated by sudden changes, and barely evolves otherwise. I find the punctuated gradualism more believable, but I'm no expert.
DeinosDinos 1 month ago
@DeinosDinos
If I take an arbitrary curved surface, it can have minimums and maximums, and those minimums and maximums can be local. Let this surface be an analogy for fitness.
A marble placed on this surface will tend to roll downhill. Let this represent an organism evolving to a position of greater fitness. Once the marble finds a well, it will tend to stay there unless the surface landscape changes. If that change pushes it out of its well, it will continue rolling.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun but it seems to me that isolates a single organism out, when in fact all organisms are evolving at once, it seems like the curve is ever-changing, albeit minuscule ones, so the marble is always rolling. I admit I'm not an expert (yet) but that's how I looked at it.
DeinosDinos 1 month ago
@DeinosDinos
The analogy I listed has limits of course, as all analogies do. The presence of other organisms are other marbles in other spots, and the interactions between competitors, predators, and prey are themselves part of the environment and have to be taken into account in that curved surface.
The point is, that crocodilians have been doing the same thing (wait patiently then ambush things at water's edge) for a VERY long time, because that is a very stable well.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun And when you talk about Crocodile you can also talk about insects like dragonflies, centipedes, or horseshoe crabs whose basic structure hasn't changed in a very long time...I see...
DeinosDinos 1 month ago
My common sense tells me that this video is very informative. :-)
419Films 1 month ago
First mistake: defining common sense as intuition. Idiot.
4limitedgovt 2 months ago
My commen sense is telling me this is childs play.
dotcombatgames 2 months ago
How does an atom evolve into something living? Living things can't come from non living things correct? No matter how long I wait, (if I'm alive forever) no part of the rock will evolve into a living thing. Yes the atoms that come off might become part of a living thing, but not without something already living.
1TopGunPaintballer 3 months ago
Another good one is the 4 aces card trick. You take 4 aces and mix them up face down. You then flip one over and try to match the color. At first it seems like a 50/50 chance of success, the reality is the true game starts after you flip one card over. You then have a 1 in 3 chance of matching the color, those are the actual odds.
greentiger332 3 months ago
Common sense tells me the natural world is all there is. and when you're dead, you're dead.
pompousprick 3 months ago
Re Monty's Paradox: You will pick the car one out of three times. Therefore, once out of three times Monty will pick one of two goats. So once out of three times, when you've already picked the car, you lose if you change your choice, But the other two times when you don't pick the car, he will pick a goat, leaving the only other unchosen door the car. So two out of three times you will win if you change your choice. It's not obvious or intuitive at first but you can logically work it out.
TerrencePhillip66 3 months ago
Comment removed
TerrencePhillip66 3 months ago
Another great video C0nc0rdance..Greetings and best wishes from Greece.
Stevoukos 4 months ago
The failure of people to correctly solve the goat-car-door problem is NOT a fault of "common sense" but of lazy insufficient mathematical modelling. I got it right the first time I went through it, because I had already understand that the definition of probability depends upon someone knowing or not knowing something. So, including what Monty Hall knows, we can get the right answer.
mphello 4 months ago
YES! FINALLY! SOMEBODY SAID IT!
THANK YOU for posting a video with this title:
COMMON SENSE IS WORTHLESS IN SCIENCE!
Same too in higher mathematics. You would not believe the strange difficult-to-comprehend concepts in pure mathematics, such as the existence of non-measurable sets.
mphello 4 months ago
Just enlarge the numbers from 3 doors up to 100 doors and you may pick one, and after that the host will open 98 of the doors you did not chose, do you still think you have a 50% change?
No you still have your initial choice of 1% change, as there are at least 98 wrong doors left in those you dident chose, it is irrelevant if 98 of those 99 are opened.
so changing alwase switches you from 1% towards 99% change
sirPiteye 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The monty hall problem is best explained by looking at the initial choice, you divide the doors into 2 groups 1 with only one door (1/3) and the second with 2 doors (2/3), so its alwase in you best intrest to get the group with most doors as there the chance is bigger (2/3 against 1/3)
It does not matter if the host reveals one of the goats in the two doors as in any group of two doors there is alwase one goat, making the switch alwase moves you from the 1/3 change towards the 2/3 change.
sirPiteye 4 months ago
The monty hall problem is best explained by looking at the initial choice, you divide the doors into 2 groups 1 with only one door (1/3) and the second with 2 doors (2/3), so its alwase in you best intrest to get the group with most doors as there the chance is bigger (2/3 against 1/3)
It does not matter if the host reveals one of the goats in the two doors as in any group of two doors there is alwase one goat, making the switch alwase moves you from the 1/3 change towards the 2/3 change.
sirPiteye 4 months ago
that was an excellent video, thanks.
fewhavestrength 4 months ago
actually i love to think about atoms, and there movements. aswell as the size of the universe, the distance between stars. i guess you are just not capible of such things, and thats too bad because its awsome if you really think about it.
kamilianawow 5 months ago
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices.... we have to learn to discard what common sense tells us in favor of empirical evidence and rational deduction"
Well-said!
IceAges14Aces 5 months ago
i just cant understand Monty Hall's problem, its driving me crazy... i love that
joe3123 5 months ago
@joe3123 The best way to get the Monty Hall problem is to play some imaginary games (eg with a dice to chose the room) and you play the role of Monty Hall, not the contestant.
What soon becomes apparent is that most of the time the contestants first choice is wrong. And, whenever that happens, you as Monty Hall have no choice about which door to open, it has to be the other wrong door...
chrisofnottingham 4 months ago
My problem with the MHP is that the only reason the "common sense" answer isn't immediately correct is because of the additional condition that the host knows what is behind which door and will always choose a goat. That's why the entire thing is not just a simple 1/3 chance, because he narrows it down. Other problems can be made if you change the conditions under which the decisions are made, but that's simply making a new problem with a new probability.
LithiumLogica 5 months ago
almost three quarters into the video at about 5:55 minutes: that brings me to the point of this video.
lol
ArsonistInUrFirewall 5 months ago
7:15 Now that's interesting: broccoli, cabbage, and kale, are cultivated from wild mustard. I never knew that, certainly went against my common sense! :)
Akira625 5 months ago
Ha, ha, ha.......this guy is trying to explain science with game theory........
I am a strategy expert and can easily debunk this video. Basically Strategy is game theory at its best.
Now, why do we call it THE ART OF WAR and not the SCIENCE OF WAR?
Anybody who votes thumbs up for this video doesn't know a shit about strategy or game theory!!!
dannywizz 5 months ago
@dannywizz "Now, why do we call it THE ART OF WAR and not the SCIENCE OF WAR?"
Who are "we"? Sun Tzu? There's plenty of science in both warfare and strategy(and most art for that matter). Even if you disregard the science behind the weaponry and armor itself. Anyway, game theory is just a tiny branch of mathematics and just one of a huge array of tools scientists can use to explain things if it happens to be a useful approach.
Gnomefro 5 months ago
@Gnomefro The truth is that it is both a SCIENCE and an ART. The subject is a bit more complex than saying that do this and that and you will have that outcome. Even the best teams can lose against the worst team because of the ART of strategy.
Weaponry and Armor ARE NOT STRATEGY.
I just find this video amusing if not outright silly!
dannywizz 5 months ago
Comment removed
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
Smoking cannabis helps stimulate brain cells firing, and growing which in turn does wonders for perception, and conceiving this universe. one love
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@truthseeker010101 "Smoking cannabis helps stimulate brain cells firing, and growing which in turn does wonders for perception, and conceiving this universe."
Hmm... I see, and that's why potheads are perceived by others as exceptionally slow and out of focus? In reality, cannabis actually inhibits the function of a whole range of neurotransmitters and has severe effects on memory. A substance that works that broadly can never be without side effects - whatever benefit you claim to see in it.
Gnomefro 5 months ago
bravo good sir
Ridah2412 6 months ago
Even though I understand the principles of lift, thrust, and drag, when I look at a 747 sitting on the runway I can't imagine how it's possible for it to fly. It just makes no sense!
FluffyFeralMarmot 6 months ago
Scientists are also human, and are not utterly immune to "human responses", no matter how much they may try to be.
MagiMysteryTour 6 months ago
The scientists' acceptance of the big bang may be an example of self-delusion, strictly a defense mechanism to allow them to explain something they don't actually understand.
The title of this video could be revised. Surely common sense can often be misleading, but to claim that common sense is "worthless" in science has got to be erroneous. "Logical deduction" is an extension of common sense. I'm sure Einstein would have disputed the claim that common sense is "worthless".
MagiMysteryTour 6 months ago
None of us has ever witnessed the level of changes that occur over billions of years. So we invent a backwards trail toward some non-existant point of origin, and call it the Big Bang.
Scientists have mapped out the big bang by using "common sense" to retrace backwards in time from current observed astronomy to a hypothetical "logical conclusion", which is in fact unobservable as well as unprovable.
MagiMysteryTour 6 months ago
Its so simple that its hard to believe that when I first encountered this problem I was so certain it was a 50/50 chance.
You have a 2 in 3 chance of picking a goat.
Therefor the host has a 2 in 3 chance of opening the only other door with a goat.
Therefor there is a 2 in 3 chance that the car is behind the other door.
I think the problem is that we tend to focus on the chance of our choice being right (i.e. 1/3 chance of picking the car) instead of considering the more likely scenario.
TyheamRufac 6 months ago
Red Light shift proves that the universe is streched out. And this is only one more coinsidence witht eh scripture: God streched out the universe!
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
If you remove common sense, NONSENSE comes in. This is exactly what the seculars want to do. They know that if they can keep you from exercising your critical thinking, they can make you believe in anything, like evolution and abiogenesis. Btw, shrimp is yummy, I agree, but they are also bottom feeders.
compgrad1 6 months ago
@compgrad1
"If you remove common sense, NONSENSE comes in. "
False dichotomy detected. Thanks for playing.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Go ahead then and "play the game". Evolution is an evil thing. Science is great, but bad science is bad science, a.k.a. evolution. Get away from that stuff, it has no facts to support it.
compgrad1 6 months ago
@compgrad1
"Evolution is an evil thing."
If that is so, then reality is evil.
"Get away from that stuff, it has no facts to support it. "
Oh, aside from the massive amounts of evidence in its favor, of course.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Reality check: reality is real and evolution is not. Ok, evidence that favors evolution. Like what? When did a fish turn into a man? Don't bother with "micro evolution", I do accept that and it's not evolution, it's adaptation. The evolution that I am talking about is like the crocoduck and stuff like that. Evolution is evil as well because it crushes the weak so that the strong can go on.... where in nature do you see that? Only in humans.
compgrad1 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@compgrad1
"reality is real and evolution is not. "
Then explain the huge amounts of evidence.
"When did a fish turn into a man?"
Nobody says that's what happened.
"crocoduck "
Oh, for fuck's sake.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@compgrad1 "Evolution is evil as well because it crushes the weak so that the strong can go on.... where in nature do you see that? Only in humans." Please tell me you are joking??? What planet are you living on? Have you ever even considered for a second the life of another animal?
SecularSamurai 6 months ago
I love the spoof on the "American Gothic" painting at (7:10):
"Kansas BORED of education"
LMAO... Priceless
Sexycosy 6 months ago
@Sexycosy I have been to eldon IA, smallest crap town in Iowa. :LOL Really! not kidding
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@Sexycosy although Fairfield and Vedic City are very close, which I love!
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101 ILLITERATE TROLL ALERT !!!
Sexycosy 6 months ago
"Phenomenolical evidence"?(5:24) WHAT?? Did u mean phenomenological?
Sexycosy 6 months ago
Evolution is part of the design. Read chapter 14 of the Bhagavad Gita which is titled EVOLUTION
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101
"Read chapter 14 of the Bhagavad Gita which is titled EVOLUTION"
Actually it's called "The Three Gunas", or "The Three Modes of Material Nature".
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer in my translation the word evolution is used. It is not a strech by any means that the nature of the universe be called evolution.
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@truthseeker010101
"in my translation the word evolution is used"
Why? That doesn't even make a lick of sense.
"the nature of the universe be called evolution. "
The nature is CHANGE, which is what is meant in the Bhagavad Gita.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You believe in 13.7 billion years? Well if that was true then the Milky Way would only have spun around 5 times, less then 5 times. Don't you think if someting is moving around are 220 million miles per hour it probably has spun more then I can count on one hand? The Universe could be 100 quadtillion years old. The truth is that we don't know, and we can speculate as I just did. People accuse religious people of not being open minded, I think science isn't open minded enough today.
truthseeker010101 7 months ago
@truthseeker010101
Perhaps the Universe is 4 minutes old. Perhaps the Universe is eternal. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the Big Bang appears to have occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and no extant information can reach us beyond that boundary. Scientists not only accept this and know it, but they've actually mapped out the various consequences.
I think you'll see the imaginations of scientists if you read science fiction. Now read religious fiction....
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago 12
@C0nc0rdance 13.7 billion is a small number
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance what if you make you're common sense tailored to the scientific info you've so rounded yourself you're entire life? after watching a documentary a long time about micro fractures in metals that caused a whole fucking train to derail in i think it was Germany i have 0 problems comprehending things like the grand canyon or the sand in the sahara desert being the result of thermal contraction and dilation of rock until it brakes
RoScFan 2 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance or an even better and more down to earth example: the earth going around the sun is totally intuitive to me; or it being spherical; are you kidding me? how many times have i talked with people on the net on the other side of the earth? none of that makes sense unless to think of the earth as round and going around the sun;
i'll tell what though: one thing i really can't imagine is how a photon "sees" the universe…. the entire universe for them is a single surface? ….
RoScFan 2 weeks ago
@truthseeker010101 "The Universe could be 100 quadtillion years old. The truth is that we don't know"
You can make statements like that about anything but the strong evidence is that our universe of space-time started expanding from a size of zero 13.7bn years ago.
Belief is not the point, it is what the evidence shows. Nobody in science was expecting an expanding universe, the default view was that it was static. The evidence showed otherwise. We are not open minded, we follow evidence.
chrisofnottingham 6 months ago
@chrisofnottingham God exists in all that you study to prove God does not exist. God is your conscience, your logic, your reasoning in debates, and God is all things.
If the universe was only 13.7 billion years, an arbitrary number! then the milky way would have spun less then 5 times in that time. My science professor said he liked my hypothisis, and it deserves further study. God exists and your only reason for being a non beleiver is you hate christians?
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101 If you want to believe in your ideas that's up to you. The point I was making is that science is only about the weight of evidence. 13.7bn years is primarily based on the Hubble constant which is obtained from the observed redshift of objects with known luminosity.
We may all be a dream in Krishna's slumber but science only follows evidence - that is what science is. So until there is evidence for Krishna he will remain outside of science, even if he is our Lord.
chrisofnottingham 6 months ago
@chrisofnottingham which direction from earth does the red light go? I know the answer, I just wondor what your answer is.
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101 I " which direction from earth does the red light go? I know the answer, I just wondor what your answer is."
I'm not really sure what you are asking . All light from Earth travels away from the Earth, all light arriving at Earth travels toward it.
If you mean what direction are the various sources of light moving then the answers is that nothing really moves anywhere. Instead, more space appears between objects at the large scale so that everything gets further apart.
chrisofnottingham 6 months ago
@chrisofnottingham good answer.
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101
"If the universe was only 13.7 billion years, an arbitrary number! then the milky way would have spun less then 5 times in that time"
Actually, the Milky Way is estimated to be 39 Galactic years old, which means that the sun has rotated 39 times around the galactic center since then. One rotation takes 225 to 250 million terrestrial years.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "the Milky Way is estimated to be 39 Galactic years old, which means that the sun has rotated 39 times around the galactic center since then. One rotation takes 225 to 250 million terrestrial years."
Your source?
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101
"Your source?"
Science!
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@chrisofnottingham The equation is written differently then the problem proposed. It is illogical to begin with if the equation does not match the question. I guess the person who made this is illogical, and so is everyone who doesn't see the equation does not match the question proposed. Good luck fooling the human mind! Jah Lives
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101
We know the age of the universe due to the speed of light.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 hows that
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101 Why are you saying that a speed that seems large for you implies there must have been many rotations? Your 'speculation' is unguided and unscientific. The age of the universe is based on several consistent valid dating techniques.
In addition, our place in the Milky Way is on a 225My cycle. At that rate assumed constant, the number of cycles would be (13.7*10^9)/(225*10^6)=60. If the rotation has been slowing, it would be greater. Your calculations and understanding are poor.
JaySmith91 6 months ago
@JaySmith91 "consistent valid dating techniques." For the universe? thw whole universe? really, explain.
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101 The most precise measurement of the age of the Universe, ca 13.7 Gy, made by NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. I urge you to read ( astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age [D O T,] html) and to understand its content. I cannot give you much guidance into actually understanding the cosmological and atomic dating of the universe. For that it takes intellect - more than I can hope to provide to you in my current inebriated state. Good night.
JaySmith91 6 months ago
@JaySmith91 I am fimilar with it, it's quite amazing the probe still works isn't it? I don't disagree with science, I beleive it can be exponded on, which is the nature of science so whats the problem? you don't like me thinking ? Should I just take what I'm taught as truth? I think not. I am skeptical of all things, but I study them. I like that you know all the facts though, you do your thing, I'll keep thinking how I think thanks. One love
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
@truthseeker010101 In a sense youre right that we don't know. We know that the universe is expanding. We take the expansion and we work it back and we get that the universe reaches singularity at roughly 13.7 Billion years. So what we can expect is to not find any light reaching beyond 14.7 billion light years. Science is open minded. If new data presents itself we change our minds. Religion is dogmatic which is the opposite of change.
braedencowbrough 5 months ago
@truthseeker010101 Science is based on evidence, If you were to come up with evidence that goes against what we know, then show it. So far theres is one rule that contributes to the big bang. If Galaxies today are moving away from us, then at one point, in the past, they must have been closer. So when smarter then I, people calculated this, they found it to be 13.7 billion years from when all galaxies seemed to have been in the same place at the same time.
SongofthePresence 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The equation is written differently then the problem proposed. It is illogical to begin with if the equation does not match the question. I guess the person who made this is illogical, and so is everyone who doesn't see the equation does not match the question proposed. Good luck fooling the human mind! LOL
I smoke cannabis to stimulate my brain cells. One Love Jah Lives
truthseeker010101 7 months ago
@truthseeker010101
"I smoke cannabis to stimulate my brain cells. "
You'd better stop doing that, since it's clearly not working.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer My professors, my wife, my family, and friends would all call you ignorant. I have a peer reviewed paper thats ready for you to read and shed your ignorance... when your ready
truthseeker010101 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@truthseeker010101
"My professors, my wife, my family, and friends would all call you ignorant."
Then why is it you keep spewing ignorant bullshit?
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Comment removed
truthseeker010101 7 months ago
Huh, remains the same choice I say instantly....
nokomarie1963 7 months ago
Queer, indeed.
Crackmandan 7 months ago
isn't this from that movie 21 ?
crackthecorn 7 months ago
Hey, that's actually what I saw in some of my fellow students... Trying to rebute some findings of a paper for example with previous knowledge. What they are missing is the NEW knowledge that was established with a publication of a paper. I really do have trouble explaining it to them...
r0galik 7 months ago
I find Vos Savant's solution the easiest way to think of the monty hall problem:
Imagine that your initial guess is correct, which will happen 1/3 of the time. In this case, switching will ALWAYS mean a loss. However, in the other 2/3 of cases when you DON'T initially choose the correct door, by switching you will ALWAYS move to the winning door. Therefore, by following this policy of switching when given the choice, you will win 2/3 of the time in the long run.
vonkruel 7 months ago
When you stand on the ground it is pushing you upwards with a force equal to your weight. I think most people don't really believe Newton's 3rd law in this common situation.
chrisofnottingham 7 months ago 2
Can I also which to the door the game show host opened? I want the goat!
TaiFerret 8 months ago
The proof is actually very simple and very logical. Your first choice has 1/3 odds of being correct. If you are correct and change your decision you will always be wrong. If however you were initially wrong and change your decision you will always be right. Thus there are 2/3 odds that you will be correct when you change your decision. If you stick with your initial decision you obviously have 1/3 odds of being right.
dartplayer170 8 months ago 2
Sorry I think I said my problem not clear enough: I don't have problems understanding the Birthday problem, its really not hard. My problem is the use of the word "only" he uses it like 1/2 is LESS then 1/30. That was all
eirh 8 months ago
While talking about the "Birthday-Problem" you said something like "The chances are not 1 in 30 they are ONLY 1 in 2". This really bothers me, because it seems like you also had a problem to understand the quantities
eirh 8 months ago
@eirh There are 365 days in a year... if there are just 2 people thats 1:365...absolutely
The odds are of one person sharing a birthday with one other... its 99% if you have 57 people...
So 2 will share almost certainly a birthday in a room with 57 people... BUT 55 will not!
it calculates using x(n)= 1-((365-1)/365)^n
where x(n) is the probability of a shared birthday....
But remember only 2 people would have a shared birthday...not all 57! that would be bloody amazing!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@eirh To put it another way... I think you might be getting confused with the idea 'how many people should be in the room for them ALL to share a birthday with at least one other person in the room?'... thats a lot of people... you'd need a hotel convention centre for that!
Only 50% of them will share a birthday if you had 730 people in that room! To have at least a 99% chance you need a room with roughly 25,000 people!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
only 414!!! I want more articles on the platypus!!!!
BloodSweatTiers 8 months ago
I was confused about the door conflict at first also. It actually did an experiment with some playing cards, and discovered that its best to go with your second choice. And I found that this works with other gambles in life as well.
chadd990 8 months ago
I have a friend who likes to say "If everyone thinks you're a crackhead, then you might be a crackhead." Of course he changes crackhead for other things, but his point is that if many people think you are a certain way, then you probably are that way. I think thats bullshit. Just because its a common idea, doesnt make it right.
chadd990 8 months ago
I can imagine a stoner having a stroke watching this video.
SocialDissimulation 8 months ago
6:18 hay! That's Venture Brothers!
LtModigliani 8 months ago
Enjoyable vid, but the game show thing bothers me.
What you're saying is that when you have 2 choices, door 1 or door 2, after eliminating door 3 as a goat, it is better to switch from the first door that you originally chose?
Seems like if you run this simulation that over time 1/2 the cars will be behind the door you originally chose, half the time behind the door you could switch to.
And that's wrong?
Highlyskeptical 8 months ago
@Highlyskeptical
I'm with you, it drove me nuts at first, then it drove me insane when I accepted that I was wrong but couldn't see why... I can only say that you have to stick with it, check the Wikipedia page which is well written and clear, and that the fact that Monty Hall knows which door has the goat makes all the difference in the world. If he didn't, you would be absolutely correct. The probabilities switch from 1-in-3 to 1-in-2.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago 2
@Highlyskeptical Heres how to get your head around it..
1. The original choice gave you a 33.33% odds of getting the car... okay?
2. Just because you were shown a goat in door 3 does not alter the odds of 33% ... that still remains.
3. To improve those odds you must now choose the door which neither you...(not the game show host considered at all)
4. You also know the game show host HAD TO choose a goat.
5. Ergo door 2 has a 66.66% chance of having the car. and you chose the 33.33% chance.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@Highlyskeptical 2/3 of the time your initial choice will be wrong. Everyone of those times the host will be required to open the other goat. The remaining door is always going to be the correct choice. Therefore your switch will be correct 2/3 of the time. The only time the switch will be incorrect was the 1/3 time that you chose correctly on the first occasion.
dartplayer170 8 months ago
@Highlyskeptical The way to get to grips with this old chestnut is to play the role of the game show host and then play the game many times with the contestant always swapping.
In the one third of cases were they are correct, you open either of the wrong doors and they swap to the other wrong door. However you soon realise that whenever they start by picking a wrong door (2/3 of the time), you are forced to open the other wrong door, leaving only the winning door which they then swap to.
chrisofnottingham 7 months ago
@Highlyskeptical Probability is conditional, not absolute. If you roll an unbiased die (in an unbiased manner), the probability of getting a 6 is 1/6; but if you peek at a (randomly selected) corner of the die before actually looking at it, and see a dot, the probability of having rolled a 6 increases (to 1/4, in fact). In the Monty Hall problem, Monty has information that you initially don't, and imparts it to you when he offers you the switch. That information affects the probability.
Zahlman 7 months ago
@Highlyskeptical ... but not in the way you'd expect: the information is completely about the other door, and not the one you've picked. When you picked a goat initially, Monty effectively tells you which door has the car behind it; but when you picked the car initially, you don't get information.
Zahlman 7 months ago
@Highlyskeptical Here is a variation which has the exact same principal but magnifies why switching is better. Suppose you have 1000 doors and all but 1 have goats and there is a car behind 1. So same setup more doors. You will almost certainly pick originally a goat. Now the host opens every door except the one you picked and one other one. Do you switch? Of course, almost certainly now the other one has the car since your original pick almost certainly didn't.
PainefulMass 7 months ago
@Highlyskeptical I know you posted this a while back, but going to reply.
Imagine you are on the show, and you guess door 1. Host says, do you want Door 1, or to have BOTH Door 2 and Door 3? Of course you would switch, 2/3 chance. You KNOW one of those two doors has a goat. He just opens up the goat one for you.
Imagine 1,000,000 doors. You pick one. What is the chance that you actually picked the right door? I would switch for the 999,999 other doors, and let the host open all but 1 for me.
Tahlorn 5 months ago
@Tahlorn Thanks, this explanation makes the most sense to me!
Highlyskeptical 5 months ago
Common sense only applies to common situations. It really has no place in the quest to understand the unknown.
If things could be discovered via common sense, the universe would have been well understood long before science became popular.
AntiTheocracy 9 months ago
FUCKIN' BRILLIANT! O_O
dumbnetworks 9 months ago
While I understand the point of the video and agree with it, I must nonetheless disagree with what it claims. Common sense is a miracle of inductive reasoning in its own right.
What I -do- agree with is that common sense should not be given priority over scientific evidence, as common sense regrettably -does- make mistakes every so often. That, however is not to say it is useless; it holds an awesome power in its own right, but this power must be verified.
Artwich 9 months ago
@DanteDouglas Common Sense is the amazing talent nature gives all living things. For example, if you saw someone throw a fresh egg at a tree, you know the egg is going to break and run down the tree. No-one has to teach you. However, if twenty corrupt policemen insisted that it IS possible for a fresh egg to pass straight through a tree, and your friends all agreed with them, that is politicized "science". 100 yrs ago it was "common knowledge" that tooth decay was caused by a "tooth worm""
kaferere 9 months ago
@kaferere You only know that the egg will break because you have observed eggs breaking relatively easily many times before. if it was a glass bottle you would understand that the bottle might not break because glass is tougher than eggshell.
common sense is simply rationalized intuition based on preconcieved bias, so what do you do when you have two oposing views based on nothing but intuition?
MrAudiovideodisco 9 months ago
@kaferere If you had never seen an egg before, nor a tree...nor experienced gravity...or force...all the common sense in the world would not prepare you for the NEW experience of 'broken egg'.
This is why many people are confused by things they have never seen... so the question 'can I put my hand on a stand made of material less dense than say sugar puffs! then light a bonfire underneath the stand...without damaging the stand or burning myself?' well, whats the answer?
No go look up Aerogel!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
The Monty Hall Problem bothered me when I first heard it, because it wasn't explained right. This video is better, because the problem only works if you know that Monty Hall has knowledge and motivation when he opens a door.
funningincircles 9 months ago
This video is ridiculous. Common sense would give you the correct answers every time EXCEPT if you were bloody stupid. This narrator assumes that you ARE bloody stupid just because HE is! Which means he has a 50% chance of being right. What an arrogant ass he is for making the assumption that you are as stupid as he. As regards science being the "be all and end all", always remember that science has only ever proved that our imagination was correct 50 yrs ago. Science is 50yrs behind art.
kaferere 10 months ago
@kaferere
The problem is that common sense, by definition, is the very same concept as an appeal to popularity; after all, common sense is what most people hold to be true without research or study being deemed necessary. But it's nice to see you actually making a minimum amount of effort to present a counterargument to the video's points--oh wait, you didn't whatsoever.
By the way, is science behind art by 50 years in terms of medical and technological developments? Didn't think so.
SeruQuik 9 months ago
@SeruQuik I'm afraid you have fallen into the same arrogant trap as the maker of this video, i.e. YOU have decided what constitutes common sense. The generally held "everyone knows that" mantra is usually always myth and whilst many believe it (you for one) this is not what rational people hold to be common sense at all. You arrogantly assume that what YOU hold to be "common sense" and what I hold to be "common sense" as the same thing. WRONG. Logic is King, not obedience to text or politic.
kaferere 9 months ago
@kaferere
I didn't realize referencing Merriam-Webster's definition of "common sense" qualified as (1) me making the determination as to what constitutes common sense and (2) me being arrogant. For someone who states "Logic is king," you jumped to one heck of a conclusion there, friend. You also mention the "everyone knows that" mantra when the definition of common sense I pulled referred to what "most," not "all" people hold to be true. There's a significant difference.
SeruQuik 9 months ago
@SeruQuik As I said, you're hooked on obedience to text, hence your quote from a book. You've given up using the brain nature gave you and instead seek to qualify yourself by parroting second-hand pseudo-science to impress your peers with.There's little point in talking to someone who doesn't think logic is as valid as text, which has to be constantly revised because it is forced to move with the politic of the day, not "at rest" with the eternity of logic. Stay healthy, Bye.
kaferere 9 months ago
Science is so cool. *nerdgasm*
SabresGuy5 10 months ago
"Imagine 7 items on a table" - Shoot, my family is German, anything more than 2 and I start creating groups and categories .....
StarTrekLivz 10 months ago
I was actually imagining apples before you said apples
debnadaviebna 10 months ago 2
In the end, the conclusion will always either show up as rational or irrational. We can't escape our senses.
sarevor 10 months ago
Well science should not make sense, and all that new should not.
And here is why: "to make sense" comes from greek-roman meanings of "unheard" and "unseen".
So "doesn't make sense" meant "i've never seen/heard this before".
That makes "common sense" -known things; science -unknown/new things!
Simple, isn't it?
SEThatered 10 months ago
I first heard of the goat-car problem from 21. It seemed wrong at the time, but I was able to wrap my head around it using an analogy with cards.
Say your looking for the ace of diamonds. Your partner fans the deck to you and you randomly pick one without knowing what it is. Your partner goes through it and knowingly picks one and sets the rest aside. He says "One of our two cards is the Ace of Diamonds. Which do you think it is?" The answer is obvious.
It's the exact same princibple.
every116 10 months ago
@every116
If he isn't allowed to pick the ace, and can't lie, the you're safe to go with your own :D
twooffour 10 months ago
I think you are confusing imagination and logic. Limits on imagination do not limit logic or common sense.
dfpolis 10 months ago
A nice video until it got to the point. Evolution is rubbish. Has always been and will always be. It's a religion, belief system and totally unscientific.
the0fart0machine 11 months ago
@the0fart0machine LOL
RichardMNixon 11 months ago
@the0fart0machine "A nice video until it got to the point. Evolution is rubbish. Has always been and will always be. It's a religion, belief system and totally unscientific."
Were you serious? Because if you were I can send you a large amount of detailed information with specific sources....if you are interested. Just FYI, ignoring the evidence doesn't change anything. The evidence is still there...it didn't disappear because it is ignored. Ignoring evidence simply yields ignorance.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Can you define what a species is? You can send what you like, the evidence for ToE is well dodgy. Can you explain why evolutionists have lied in the name of evolution?
the0fart0machine 10 months ago
@the0fart0machine Evolution is agreed upon by the vast majority of relevant scientists (completely dwarfing any contradictory viewpoint)....and is also frequently utilized in numerous fields of scientific study. I will post a few (and I have many more) examples of exactly how evolution is ONLY rejected when it conflicts with religious bias.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@the0fart0machine James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@the0fart0machine In fact, EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@the0fart0machine Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95–99% depending on the primate.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@the0fart0machine The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@the0fart0machine "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@the0fart0machine Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc.
These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with a 2,000 year old holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1
Don't forget Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Luckily, AGW is disputed only by a few lone tea party nutjobs who inflate their numbers on the internet.
mphello 4 months ago
@the0fart0machine The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@the0fart0machine Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and has stood up against attempts to prove it false. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@the0fart0machine THEORY is the 'top of the heap' so to speak in scientific terms. It doesn't go
FROM a THEORY and get 'promoted' TO a LAW. You cannot say "It's ONLY a theory" when you are speaking of the scientific meaning of theory.
I have more material but you can read this information and tell me what you think.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
Comment removed
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
Comment removed
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
my common sense says why not sniff the door ,goats dont smell like cars ... ! they dont sound like them either
it also takes non mathematicians to screw in a light bulb as the electrician is employed to do that
okuma0kuma 11 months ago
All true....
GA11ARD01592 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance but science do not got any explanation for " what been explained by "chi" ".....
so what's the "scientific" explanation ???
if science can explain "something" ,science cant explain "something"...
if limits exits beyond limits exits ........if limit for common sense exits ...beyond the limit of common sense also exists
science is not "everything" .....and i personally do not believe science is capable to explain "all the Q es"
even though "it" explains lot of things
jasweresa 11 months ago
I didn't understand the goat problem at first because I thought the gameshow host picked two doors completely randomly. But having to pick one with a goat the first time means that the probabilities in one instance carry on to the next. You have a 1/3 chance at the car at first, but because you picked it, it means that it's probability remains the same whereas the remaining doors are reduced by half.
I also came up with the equation for birthday probability all by myself after I first heard it
AllOtherNamesTaken2 11 months ago
Excellent video !!! I have tried to look at situations more scientifically these days. It may "feel" counter-intuitive or harder to follow, but it really is the best way. It is amazing how statistics aren't always what we think they are or should be. I still don't understand the door choice switch being a better odds ??? Common sense really isn't what we are conditioned to think it is...if that makes sense.
orangemod 1 year ago
I wouldn't say that common sense is completely worthless in science, sure there are few findings that contradict it, but there are vastly greater number of findings that are in agreement with common sense rather than oppose it.
Naxatax 1 year ago
Interestingly, evolution is both scientifically accurate AND consistent with "common sense". Evolution is based on some incredibly simple observations, and follows logically from the fundamental principles of how life works (namely reproduction with variation), AND it's supported by a mountain of evidence.
To me, it doesn't seem Creationists deny Evolution because it violates common sense, but because it defies dogma.
However, the point of this video is correct. Common sense only goes so far.
TransparentChocolate 1 year ago
I remember doing these examples in my MAT 111 class.
Weredawg 1 year ago
For those of you commenting that you don't believe that you are better off switching, play the game with a friend with some cards. That's what I did with a someone who didn't believe it. I used to read Parade and I remember the angry letters. I really liked that Marilyn Savant.
vbqa63 1 year ago
Sue Blackmore found a correlation between superstition and an inability to calculate chances.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
Empirical evidence is the basis for common sense. Studies are the basis of "proof." Now can science prove that this pack of full-flavored Pall Mall 100's combined with these 8 pints of Bud Light will kill me instantly? The US surgeon general would say yes, but I'll need empirical proof.
I'll be back. Or maybe not.
sirius1188k 1 year ago
That picture around 7:30 unnerves me... otherwise, well done.
meinevvelten 1 year ago
According to your video, Common sense is the same as intuition, but I would define them differently: Common sense are the known premices about how the world works, while Intuition is reaching a conclusion without using the process of logic.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
This is a great video! I think you could have used more physics to demonstrate just how detrimental common sense can be, but not everyone knows enough to get the more in depth ones =]
I've seen the car problem before, and it is interesting, every time I think I've got it, I try thinking it through from the beginning, and all of a sudden, I'm back to square 1...
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago
This is probibly one of the best vids on youtube i have seen in ages! Very well done!
BrendonKinsey 1 year ago
both agreed and disagreeable.
thanks
PiratGeneralen 1 year ago
lol. 0:34 It's His Exalted Noodliness, the FSM
paspax 1 year ago