Interesting programme about twins last night on the BBC, but Lord Winston
(most famous medic) quoted some probabilities to compare with
coincidences. Taking his first calculation: what is the probability that
both twins, brought up and living independently, drove Chevies, he used
the argument that 1 in n cars at the time were chevies, so quoted 1/n
SQUARED as the probability of the coincidence.
Biggest mistake: he was after the probability only of a coincidence, so
would have been equally surprised to find two Fords, two Hondas or two
Rollers. So at best, he should have said the probability was 1/n that
the second twin's car matched the first.
Next: he took several such "probabilities" and multiplied them as
independent events. As all were lifestyle related, and therefore
correlated, this clearly made the probability look more impressive
than it should.
Did he also confuse odds and probabilities? Using the backdrop of a dog
racing track would have suggested the former to many viewers.
Is there any point in taking this up with editorial staff at the BBC?
R. Allan Reese Email: [log in to unmask]
Associate Manager Direct voice: +44 1482 466845
Graduate Research Institute Voice messages: +44 1482 466844
Hull University, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Fax: +44 1482 466846
====================================================================
If Stephenson, Marconi and Edison had lived in the opposite order, so
the mobile phone got invented before the railway, would people still
find the need to travel, and tell people where they are?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|