Added: 4 years ago
From: CousinoMacul
Views: 1,898
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (25)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • awesome! thanks for explaining prosecutors fallacy in a brevity way! i was lost in my class and your video helped me write my essay for prosecutors fallacy and it's conditional probability!!! thanks again!

  • Hmmm a DNA test of 1 in 10,000 is not very good. That may have been 20years ago with bad sample. These days its always in the billions.

    So there might be one other persons who DNA matches in the whole world. Then any other link seals the deal.

    So the fallacy doesnt apply any more.

  • I believe that I admitted that my examples were oversimplifications to make a point. However, there are plenty of other tests or situations where the number of permutations is significantly smaller than the population size.

    The fallacy (if I remember correctly) was named well before DNA testing. DNA was just the example I chose to use.

    The fallacy can crop up anywhere (disease testing, interpretation of data, etc.), so I would say that it still does apply.

  • "The fallacy (if I remember correctly) was named well before DNA testing."

    Was first coined, 20 years ago when DNA was fairly new and some lawyers still tried to pretend it didnt work.

    Just trying to think of other examples, maybe claiming someone was soley guilty because they drive the same type of car. Theres usually more than one piece of evidence tho.

    Can think of quite a few cases where people have been found guilty only because the victims DNA was found in their car etc.

  • Great reasoning, Javier... though the total population of the country can't be the number to use in the probability fraction, since some could be easily discounted... babies, travellers abroad, nursing home inhabitants or hospitalized citizens. etc... regardless... it was a great video and fine food for thought.

    8-)

  • Thanks for these vids, Javier. I am aware of these fallacies as you have revealed them so far, but I was not aware of their names. I didn't know they had specific titles, I just thought of them as bad math. =) Keep it up, please!

  • Half of my final year dissertation was on statistics, but this is much cooler!

  • Mmm statistics. Flashing back to basic statistics courses here XD Great video!

  • sorry mate, just joking, its 3am here in the uk... I am up writting up a report, on hemispheric asymmetries in implicit memory... yeap... I am more of a geek...

  • :-)  I miss those days ... or maybe not so much. lol

  • what you described is the defendants fallacy, not the prosecutors....

  • No. I specifically said that there was <b>no</b> other evidence except the DNA. That makes the <i>prosecutor's</i> argument fallacious. If there had been other evidence (like say pointing to the husband or boyfriend), then the <i>defendant</i> would be wrong to make that argument. Read the wiki page I linked to in the video description; it discusses <i>both</i> of those fallacies.

  • 'I dont think you understand the fallacy very well...

  • Okay, explain it to me.

  • I was going to say maybe someone should right a book on fallacies. There are a few on Amazon though with regards to fallacies, argument and critical thought. It would be cool to have a book listing them all with a short description of each. Logical and Statistical fallacies by The Science Pundit :-D

  • Great video.

    I remember watching a speech by Neil deGrasse Tyson(cosmologist) where he said he was doing jury duty. The defendant was up for drug position and the judge said he had been caught with 1000mg of cocaine. Neil he asked "eh why don't you say 1g (1 gram)" because obviously 1000mg sounds more at first than 1g when in fact they are the same. He said he was vetoed by the other lawyer and went home lol. Not really a statistic fallacy but more of a measurement perception fallacy.

  • Good man. Thanks and subscribed

  • SWEET! I love statistics!

  • And an excellent explanation!

  • Nice work! Keep waiting for you to start cracking jokes but you're damn good at the serious stuff. Can't wait for the next episode.

  • Looking forward to the rest of your series.

  • Gracias!

  • good stuff. are you planing on doing one involving Bayes' Theorem?

  • Perhaps. We'll see how it goes.

  • Very interesting and very imformative.

  • A very well done video, 5/5.

  • Right on. Statisticians FTW!

  • I thought this was super fascinating. Look forward to the rest. Brill!!

  • another good example of this is false positives on medical tests for rare diseases. might be worth a follow-up vid if you're doing more than one of these (just an idea).

  • I was actually thinking of including that in this video, but decided to make it a follow-up because that also falls under other statistical fallacies.

  • After lising to this I think the "fine tuning" argument might fall under this.

  • great job man!!

    I await the rest of the series 5/5

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more