weighing the chances

Vote 0 Votes

According a myth found on snoops.com A woman over the age of 40 has a better chance of being victim of a terrorist attack than getting married. There are a few principles of scientific thinking that would prove this to be an unproven claim. Firstly, terrorist attacks are so rare and usually not specifically aimed at 40 year old women, so it would be hard to replicate any kind of testing to see which is more likely. Also this is a pretty extraordinary claim, and so it would require extraordinary evidence to prove. There's no real evidence that supports this other than maybe the number of women over 40 that get married vs. the number of women over 40 that are killed in an attack, but even then that leads to causation vs. correlation, meaning was it that those women were over 40 that caused the attack, or is it possibly that being over 40 is the reason they get married. Bottom line there's so much randomness and variables in either situation that this wouldn't be a scientific fact.
blog post 4.jpg

1 Comment

| Leave a comment

Does causation matter in this case? Wouldn't merely looking at the statistics show a comparison for the likelihood? How does replicability apply in a case where you are looking at statistical probability?

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by hans4326 published on November 2, 2011 8:45 PM.

A love addiction was the previous entry in this blog.

Violent Video Games are Not the Cause of Violent Behavior is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.