May 24, 2017 04:47 AM
Paradoxes of probability and other statistical strangeness
https://theconversation.com/paradoxes-of...ness-74440
EXCERPT: You don’t have to wait long to see a headline proclaiming that some food or behaviour is associated with either an increased or a decreased health risk, or often both. How can it be that seemingly rigorous scientific studies can produce opposite conclusions? Nowadays, researchers can access a wealth of software packages that can readily analyse data and output the results of complex statistical tests. While these are powerful resources, they also open the door to people without a full statistical understanding to misunderstand some of the subtleties within a dataset and to draw wildly incorrect conclusions. Here are a few common statistical fallacies and paradoxes and how they can lead to results that are counterintuitive and, in many cases, simply wrong.....
MORE: https://theconversation.com/paradoxes-of...ness-74440
Worried about shark attacks or terrorism? Here’s how to think about the real risk of rare events
https://theconversation.com/worried-abou...ents-74690
EXCERPT: The world can feel like a scary place. Today, Australia’s National Terrorism Threat Level is “Probable”. Shark attacks are on the rise; the number of people attacked by sharks in 2000-2009 has almost doubled since 1990-1999. Travellers are at a high risk of getting the Zika virus in places where the disease is present, such as Brazil and Mexico. However, despite their tragic outcomes, these events are all extremely rare. Since 1996, only eight people have been killed by terrorism attacks in Australia. There have been 186 shark attacks in the 20 years from 1990 to 2009. Best estimates indicate that only 1.8 people for each million tourists would have contracted Zika at the Rio Olympics. To be fair, it is extremely difficult to judge the incidence of rare events. So how should we think about these risks?
MORE: https://theconversation.com/worried-abou...ents-74690
https://theconversation.com/paradoxes-of...ness-74440
EXCERPT: You don’t have to wait long to see a headline proclaiming that some food or behaviour is associated with either an increased or a decreased health risk, or often both. How can it be that seemingly rigorous scientific studies can produce opposite conclusions? Nowadays, researchers can access a wealth of software packages that can readily analyse data and output the results of complex statistical tests. While these are powerful resources, they also open the door to people without a full statistical understanding to misunderstand some of the subtleties within a dataset and to draw wildly incorrect conclusions. Here are a few common statistical fallacies and paradoxes and how they can lead to results that are counterintuitive and, in many cases, simply wrong.....
MORE: https://theconversation.com/paradoxes-of...ness-74440
Worried about shark attacks or terrorism? Here’s how to think about the real risk of rare events
https://theconversation.com/worried-abou...ents-74690
EXCERPT: The world can feel like a scary place. Today, Australia’s National Terrorism Threat Level is “Probable”. Shark attacks are on the rise; the number of people attacked by sharks in 2000-2009 has almost doubled since 1990-1999. Travellers are at a high risk of getting the Zika virus in places where the disease is present, such as Brazil and Mexico. However, despite their tragic outcomes, these events are all extremely rare. Since 1996, only eight people have been killed by terrorism attacks in Australia. There have been 186 shark attacks in the 20 years from 1990 to 2009. Best estimates indicate that only 1.8 people for each million tourists would have contracted Zika at the Rio Olympics. To be fair, it is extremely difficult to judge the incidence of rare events. So how should we think about these risks?
MORE: https://theconversation.com/worried-abou...ents-74690