Vinay Prasad a Progressive Explains Reality (DeSantis)…

It's called the law of large numbers. Sure, if you do that with 4 people, that would not be very accurate. If 4% of thousands respond, assuming those 4% are randomly drawn, it will provide a very solid approximation of the population mean. That isn't pseudoscience. That is basic statistics.

 

The racist and anti-scientific backlash against Dr. Prasad on this thread is sad, but entirely predictable.

 

Lol, okay, the Law of Large Numbers doesn't exist. Also, gravity.

 

Maybe we can find a middle ground, and I will agree that such a thing as the law of numbers exist, as long as you agree that the law of ridiculousness exist as well, and the law of numbers is a subcategory of the law of ridiculousness. On a similar note, just because you put “the law of” in front of a proposition does not make it an absolute truth. Except for this guy…

 

No, it has the term "Law" put in front of it due to the mathematical proofs. You are literally arguing against math at this point. But perhaps you are a mathematical prodigy that will completely revolutionize math.

 

You have a different concept of proof than my profession. Us lawyers call that baseless speculation, then the Judge excludes it. How exactly does a theorem become a law in mathematics- who are the legislators?

 

Hard to believe someone is disputing settled mathmatical proofs but here we are. Reading som

Law of Large Numbers: What It Is, How It's Used, Examples.
What Is the Law of Large Numbers? The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population. This is due to the sample being more representative of the population as the sample become larger.

Law of large numbers | statistics

The law of large numbers was first proved by the Swiss mathematician Jakob Bernoulli in 1713.

 

Where did the sample size grow in this hypothetical we are discussing? The hypothetical was stagnant. It was a tiny 4 out of 100. Not really sure how this theorem has any application to the discussion. feel free to explain.

 

Your hypothetical sample size of four is too small to be useful. The sample size of the survey we have been talking about, 200, is large enough to be useful.

 

Yes, mathematicians and lawyers use different kinds of proofs.

Here is Etemadi's elementary proof of the strong law of large numbers, he gets it down to only three pages and avoids having to make some additional assumptions that earlier proofs used.

An elementary proof of the strong law of large numbers - Probability Theory and Related Fields

 

Feel free to peruse the proofs of different variations of the law to different circumstances, and let me know what is wrong with it:

Law of Large Numbers | Strong and weak, with proofs and exercises

 

Uhmm, so your saying the law/theorem of large numbers has no application to my hypothetical….or, as the folks in the black robes put it: “motion for a directed verdict is granted” LOL

 

Yes, the numbers in your hypthetical are too small to be useful. The numbers in the survey we are talking about are large enough to be useful.

 

When you were at UF, did you ever walk into the Salty Dog, look over to the bar and see a beautiful blonde coed look at you and smile? While the smile was useful , by no means does that indicate you were taking that coed home with you. That is how I feel about your assertion. Useful..maybe. Reliable indicator to the point of prediction…nope.

 

Also a sample size too small to be useful.