In simple math terms, if two events must take place for something to happen, and there is a 50% chance for each, the odds both events happened is not 50%, it's 25%. Add a third event and we're talking 12.5%. String together a bunch of low priority events and the odds become almost prohibitive.
Oh, come on Jeff, you ARE too much of a scientist to go with that!
The probabilities of UNCORRELATED events do multiply for the probability of the joint event. This assumption is sometimes called the 'objectivity of nature', or, otherwise, the 'unintentionality of nature'. (There may be other and better terms, but basically, the idea is that when you do experiments, nature does not act like a demon that wants to show you some results).
However, chains of human actions ARE CORRELATED. I am sure by analysing your curriculum vitae in the way you proposed, we would find a probability of only one in a zillion for your to have survived up to now - that is if we assume there is equal probabilities for you to decide for a suicidal action like driving after haven drunk too much alcohol etc. But the opposite is true: after you have drunk, your decision whether or not you will drive depends on your earlier decision on whether you drink that additional beer or not.
(Only for sake of example, not to allude anything but your alcohol use or driving styles.)
In a situation where one intentional entity, i.e. a thinking and wishing person, takes decisions, the joint probability for two events, that both have 50% probabilities as single events, is still 50%, if we assume perfect intentionality of the person (it means, if the person's doesn't gamble with their life), and thereby install a 100% correlation between the two events.
What you wrote most lately about Peter Stein as a suspect seems otherwise reasonable - assuming that you don't have any interest to protect him?
Regards MNI. |
