Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. James Franklin

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. James Franklin

    The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. James Franklin

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Co.../dp/0801871093

    "Evidence and Probability," and also proof, and truth, and decisions under uncertainty, many questions that we deal with today, but without formal logic, statistics or human rights. "Before Pascal" applied numbers and removed the wonder of conjecture and made it accessible to laymen. Before Pascal only the elites, kings, judges, churchmen and the educated could conjecture.

    I'm nearing the end of Franklin's illustration of the historical justification and use of torture.

    This is just the book of lessons that our sophomoric correspondents need to overcome their distrust of modern means to truth.

    The Table of Contents and Introduction and selected chapters.
    http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/probbook.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Oh, that is interesting. Thank you.

    Lemme know when you're done--I have a few questions.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-20-2016 at 01:01 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    You cna take classes on probability at your local college. Probably.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, that is interesting. Thank you. Lemme know when you're done--I have a few questions.
    Ask 'em now so I can focus and pay attention.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You cna take classes on probability at your local college. Probably.
    Not even wrong. You missed the point - AGAIN. It is about conjecture without numbers as was practiced before Blaise Pascal and as the ignorant do now.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Ask 'em now so I can focus and pay attention.
    Here's my concern. Here's what I am wondering about Franklin's piece. (And, this is in no way meant to reduce the value! Not at all!)

    Does it boil down to codifying:

    I want to make a decision. But, there are degrees of certainty. Now, I cannot be totally certain this point before me. But, I can speculate about the possibilities and alternative outcomes (meaning I can use my imagination to come up with possibilities and outcomes) and then roughly estimate the likelihood of each of those outcomes or possibilities being true or coming true. And, then, after I've done that, make my decision based on those estimations?

    Don't get me wrong. If that's what Franklin codifies, great! But, I would hate to buy the book thinking I'm going to learn this stuff, and then discover I personally already know how to do it. For me, such a book would mainly be interesting for its historical value, rather than the direct day-to-day usefulness of its contents.

    Really, I'm just looking for a little more certainty on the possibilities of what I would be buying.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Not even wrong. You missed the point - AGAIN. It is about conjecture without numbers as was practiced before Blaise Pascal and as the ignorant do now.
    I did not miss the point ... I doubt you could do do any type of actual numerical analysis ...

    Sometimes using the previous method came to the same conclusions as the new methods....so just because one uses an old, out of date and disreputable method, does not automatically mean the conclusions are wrong.

    Even courts have recognized this ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-20-2016 at 06:04 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    The book is descriptive and historical and NOT prescriptive. \

    It does describe degrees of certainty in terms quite foreign to us, like the four degrees of "rash, probable, violent(!), and necessary," or the three degrees of "rash, probable, and violent." It describes various standards necessary to achieve these certainties. (Note that I am at about page 100 of about 550.)

    While it's on my mind, Pilate's trial of Christ, that I heard in The Passion according to St. Mark today Palm Sunday in church, was quite according to the standards of the time as described. In a word, two witnesses of stature were sufficient for a conviction. In Christ's trial, that the witnesses disagreed is the reason that Pilate was required to release Christ to the will of the priests and people. Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, but was crucified by the will of the people.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-20-2016 at 07:13 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ... I doubt you could do do any type of actual numerical analysis ...
    Me personally? Your eyes are brown!
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Me personally? Your eyes are brown!
    They are ! You R good ! [likely from being so full of ---- , or so my grandmother told me on her deathbed]

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The book is descriptive and historical and NOT prescriptive. \

    It does describe degrees of certainty in terms quite foreign to us, like the four degrees of "rash, probable, violent(!), and necessary," or the three degrees of "rash, probable, and violent." It describes various standards necessary to achieve these certainties. (Note that I am at about page 100 of about 550.)

    While it's on my mind, Pilate's trial of Christ, that I heard in The Passion according to St. Mark today Palm Sunday in church, was quite according to the standards of the time as described. In a word, two witnesses of stature were sufficient for a conviction. In Christ's trial, that the witnesses disagreed is the reason that Pilate was required to release Christ to the will of the priests and people. Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, but was crucified by the will of the people.
    I'm confused.

    Who did the requiring? Did Roman law say two witnesses of stature were sufficient for conviction? Or, was that Hebrew law? Was Pilate required by Rome to go along with Hebrew law to settle Hebrew internal problems?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm confused. Who did the requiring? Did Roman law say two witnesses of stature were sufficient for conviction? Or, was that Hebrew law? Was Pilate required by Rome to go along with Hebrew law to settle Hebrew internal problems?
    Standards of the time. Read the book's description.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    I'm down to the last few pages and the end material, references, bibliography and index stuff. This is one of my all time best to read and re-read books.

    In a word it is about how logic was done before the calculus of logic and statistics.

    For the doubters of the efficacy of statistics, like himself alone these concepts are what you must master and their application.

    I've already started the search for the next book in the thread, and they were all expensive even as e-books.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I'm down to the last few pages and the end material, references, bibliography and index stuff. This is one of my all time best to read and re-read books.

    In a word it is about how logic was done before the calculus of logic and statistics.

    For the doubters of the efficacy of statistics, like himself alone these concepts are what you must master and their application.

    I've already started the search for the next book in the thread, and they were all expensive even as e-books.
    i am but a lowly cynic...

    my greatest inner desire to determine, quote: ...how judges, witch inquisitors, and juries evaluated evidence; how scientists weighed reasons for and against scientific theories; and how merchants counted shipwrecks to determine insurance rates. unquote, before 1654 is truly not high on my hierarchy of needs to attain self actualization, which i might add has been attained multiple times!! (https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/cont...nce-conjecture)

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 04-02-2016 at 04:45 PM. Reason: forgot cite
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    i am but a lowly cynic...
    Self assigned epithets distort the soul, straining to be true.

    He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.
    He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is simple. Teach him.
    He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.
    He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise. Follow him.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Self assigned epithets distort the soul, straining to be true.

    He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun Elect him.
    He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is simple. Teach License him.
    He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake Tax him.
    He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise. Follow Arrest him.
    Just say'in
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Just say'in
    We have the government you specify.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    We have the government you specify.
    You know, this is totally of the subject, but something Utbagpiper is trying to pull in another thread has me thinking in this channel.

    Question: why do we use the term government? We're not governed. We're ruled. Govern is for equals who consent to let other equals make decisions and exercise force on their behalf. The fact of the matter is that if any individual manifests his refused consent--paying only partial taxes or none, ignoring malum prohibitum laws, etc.--he's going to prison, and if he resists, force will be escalated--up to and including lethal force. Consent isn't consent if you can't withhold it. The fact of the matter is that the "government" intends to inflict itself on you whether you consent or not.

    Why do we dignify such barbarity by calling it government? Why do we go along with the gloss-over?

    As perpetrated today, it really should be called rulerment.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-04-2016 at 09:20 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You know, this is totally of the subject, but something Utbagpiper is trying to pull in another thread has me thinking in this channel.

    Question: why do we use the term government? We're not governed. We're ruled. Govern is for equals who consent to let other equals make decisions and exercise force on their behalf. The fact of the matter is that if any individual manifests his refused consent--paying only partial taxes or none, ignoring malum prohibitum laws, etc.--he's going to prison, and if he resists, force will be escalated--up to and including lethal force. Consent isn't consent if you can't withhold it. The fact of the matter is that the "government" intends to inflict itself on you whether you consent or not.

    Why do we dignify such barbarity by calling it government? Why do we go along with the gloss-over?

    As perpetrated today, it really should be called rulerment.
    Rulerment, FIFY.

    Well said. But little different from my condemnation of modern democracy as corrupt of its original conception. Only the elite oligarchs practiced democracy where they formed the demos. The commoners raised their 'legislators' by lot in sortition, using a lottery machine and voter identification cards - kloterion and pinakia.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    Excerpts.

    Three levels of probabilistic reasoning are distinguishable:

    1. Unconscious inference, the reactions to uncertain situations that the brain delivers automatically at a sub symbolic level. This system of actions -- the cloud out of which, so to speak, talk about uncertainty condensed -- can be studied by psychology, but it is not history. (A review of what is know about it, and its relation to conscious inference, is given in chapter 12.)

    2. Ordinary language reasoning about probabilities. It is this middle level that is the main subject of this book. It mainly avoid numbers entirely, as in "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in law or the nonnumerical judgements of plausibility that scientists and detectives make in evaluating their hypotheses. Or it may involve rough numerical estimates of probabilities, as in racecourse odds and guesses about the risks of rare events.

    3. Formal mathematical reasoning of the kind found in textbooks of probability and statistics.

    [ ... ]

    ... Probability is of two kinds. There is factual or stochastic or aleatory probability, dealing with chance setups such as dice throwing and coin tossing, which produce characteristic random or patternless sequences. ... On the other hand, there is logical or epistemic probability, or non-deductive logic, concerned with the relation of partial support or confirmation, short of strict entailment, between one proposition and another.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 04-05-2016 at 05:49 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm confused.

    Who did the requiring? Did Roman law say two witnesses of stature were sufficient for conviction? Or, was that Hebrew law? Was Pilate required by Rome to go along with Hebrew law to settle Hebrew internal problems?
    "Nevertheless, because of the influence of the Bible, the Jewish law is much the most important source of the rule. From ancient times, Jewish law required “two or three” witnesses to establish wrongdoing, and the New Testament repeated the rule. [Deuteronomy 17: 6, 19: 15; Numbers 35: 30] Its divine sanction caused the rule to be taken very seriously in later centuries, sometimes with extreme rigidity." (Page 4/497 Location 433/12298)
    Last edited by Nightmare; 04-06-2016 at 07:56 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    Roman law: Proof and presumptions

    "The concept of “onus of proof,” though not itself probabilistic, was basic to further developments. The fundamental rule in Roman law, and since, was that “proof is incumbent on the party who affirms a fact, not on him who denies it.” This was developed into the rule that is the ancestor of modern “proof beyond reasonable doubt” laws. Ulpian wrote that “no-one should be convicted on suspicion; for the Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript to Assiduus Severus: ‘It is better to permit the crime of a guilty person to go unpunished than to condemn one who is innocent.’[my emphasis]”

    "An explicit link appeared between probability and presumptions. Sometimes presumptions were, as in Jewish law and the modern presumption of innocence, methods of reaching decisions under uncertainty, irrespective of whether the decision was probable or not. [ ... ] Here and elsewhere the essential idea of a presumption is seen to consist in what is now called default reasoning: A presumption is what is to be taken as true, unless and until there are reasons to the contrary.[my emphasis]"
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "Nevertheless, because of the influence of the Bible, the Jewish law is much the most important source of the rule. From ancient times, Jewish law required “two or three” witnesses to establish wrongdoing, and the New Testament repeated the rule. [Deuteronomy 17: 6, 19: 15; Numbers 35: 30] Its divine sanction caused the rule to be taken very seriously in later centuries, sometimes with extreme rigidity." (Page 4/497 Location 433/12298)
    Great! Thank you. This was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "Nevertheless, because of the influence of the Bible, the Jewish law is much the most important source of the rule. From ancient times, Jewish law required “two or three” witnesses to establish wrongdoing, and the New Testament repeated the rule. [Deuteronomy 17: 6, 19: 15; Numbers 35: 30] Its divine sanction caused the rule to be taken very seriously in later centuries, sometimes with extreme rigidity." (Page 4/497 Location 433/12298)
    ok, if Talmudic law prevailed prior to the establishment of the Christian Testaments, would it be safe to say those Testaments were only reiterating the information so it would become part of the Christian dogma to be followed as a tenet by Christians? Was there a mention or do you know if the Nobel Qur'an professes those same tenets to Muslims or other faiths beginning during this time?

    thanks for sharing the excerpts....

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 04-10-2016 at 02:59 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    [ ... ]Was there a mention or do you know if the Nobel Qur'an professes those same tenets to Muslims or other faiths beginning during this time? thanks for sharing the excerpts....ipse
    "Islamic law made an attempt to achieve certainty in verdicts through a system of fixed procedural rules. A plaintiff, whether in a civil or criminal case, needed to prove through the eyewitness testimony of two witnesses (adult, male, Muslim, and of unimpeachable character). There might be witnesses to the character of other witnesses. Documents and circumstantial evidence were not admitted, in principle, though there were minor exceptions (fifty confirmatory oaths might suffice to confirm a strong suspicion, and some jurists thought that the smell of alcohol on the breath might establish the crime of drinking alcohol). Confessions were permitted, but torture to obtain them was not. When the evidence was weaker, the defendant was acquitted on swearing a oath to his innocence; the judge had no discretion to evaluate the evidence. The inevitable result of the demand for certainty in religious courts was the evolution of a system of administrative courts unconstrained by these rules and permitting circumstantial evidence, conviction on the basis of character and previous offenses, and the extortion of confessions." (Page 39/497)."

    I am not familiar with the Nobel Quran, though I did find a nobelquran.com web site.

    This was the result of a search on "Islam", the first hit of quite a few and some pages ahead of my current re-reading, so there may be some missed context.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •