> Which is, as unfortunate as it is idiotic. WHO determines its actions
> based on the statistical odds that something bad is likely to happen.
> The math told them, "There is a bloody high probability that this mix of
> genes could prove to be a serious problem, if it became wide spread."
> Turned out not to be accurate. But, the average person always seems to
> assume that the "experts" are omniscient.

I know people who think the experts are wrong every time they predict 
20% chance of rain and it doesn't rain. It also doesn't help when 
journalists publicise their incorrect analysis of statistics as if they 
were fact.

> the case of, for example, Katrina, you had some "expert" claiming that
> the sea level rise was "within" acceptable statistical ranges, with
> respect to spilling over the levees, and they actually **lied**,
> claiming that the maximum level was a few feet under the max levee
> height, without including the "statistical" factor, that it might be
> something like 10 feet higher or lower than that.

IIRC sea/wave heights are characterised by how often you would expect 
(in a statistical sense) to see a particular height. eg above 10 metres 
would be once in 10 years, above 15 metres once in 100 years etc. 
Obviously if you design your structure to cope with 15 metres that 
doesn't mean you won't see a 16 metre wave tomorrow and it will be 
destroyed, but many people seem to think this way, and the journalist 
would write that the engineer was incompetent as the structure should 
have lasted at least 100 years.

Post a reply to this message