Some people worship numbers. Paradoxically, number-worshippers are bad with numbers. Because they are so bad with them, they’re unable to critically evaluate claims that involve numbers. You can make them believe almost any idiocy, as long as you use lots of made-up or otherwise incorrect numbers in the course of selling it to them.
Some time ago in the UK there was a criminal trial in which the defendant was a mother accused of killing her two babies. Her defense was that both her babies died of the sudden infant death syndrome. Prosecution called an expert witness, a pediatrician, who testified that, since studies show that the risk of a sudden infant death syndrome occurring in a family similar to the defendant’s is 1 in 8,500, the likelihood of two such deaths occurring in one family is 1 in 73 million. Because the prosecution, the jury, the judge, and the defense were all number-worshippers, this idiotic claim went completely unchallenged. He’s talking numbers. He must be right.
The defendant’s conviction was later overturned on appeal in which it was shown that the expert’s probability claim was completely bogus. Statisticians and health researchers have shown that, first, the assumption of independence is totally unwarranted, and second, that the original calculation involved unconditional probabilities where conditional probabilities should have been used instead. But there is a far simpler reason why this calculation is ridiculous. In order to see this reason, you don’t even have to be good with numbers or know much about probabilities. All you need is a mind that thinks and does not worship numbers. One of the journalists reporting the initial trial saw it right away. Wait a minute, he said, are you telling me that the probability that this woman is innocent is 1 in 73 million? Surely this can’t be right. A great majority of mothers whose babies die did not murder them. But when, instead of thinking, you worship numbers, such simple truths are inaccessible to you. So you can wield your sanctimonious judgment on innocent people with a clear conscience.
(In this video you can learn about the details of the trial.)
Some time ago in the UK there was a criminal trial in which the defendant was a mother accused of killing her two babies. Her defense was that both her babies died of the sudden infant death syndrome. Prosecution called an expert witness, a pediatrician, who testified that, since studies show that the risk of a sudden infant death syndrome occurring in a family similar to the defendant’s is 1 in 8,500, the likelihood of two such deaths occurring in one family is 1 in 73 million. Because the prosecution, the jury, the judge, and the defense were all number-worshippers, this idiotic claim went completely unchallenged. He’s talking numbers. He must be right.
The defendant’s conviction was later overturned on appeal in which it was shown that the expert’s probability claim was completely bogus. Statisticians and health researchers have shown that, first, the assumption of independence is totally unwarranted, and second, that the original calculation involved unconditional probabilities where conditional probabilities should have been used instead. But there is a far simpler reason why this calculation is ridiculous. In order to see this reason, you don’t even have to be good with numbers or know much about probabilities. All you need is a mind that thinks and does not worship numbers. One of the journalists reporting the initial trial saw it right away. Wait a minute, he said, are you telling me that the probability that this woman is innocent is 1 in 73 million? Surely this can’t be right. A great majority of mothers whose babies die did not murder them. But when, instead of thinking, you worship numbers, such simple truths are inaccessible to you. So you can wield your sanctimonious judgment on innocent people with a clear conscience.
(In this video you can learn about the details of the trial.)
Great post. I wonder if people cede authority to number-talk faster than other specialties/authority.
ReplyDelete