tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2844715519976638051..comments2016-06-28T04:03:13.399-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: In the Spirit of Deep ClimateEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74239742392086579432014-06-11T05:02:04.450-04:002014-06-11T05:02:04.450-04:00Tom:
I misread my spreadsheet. Let's try again...Tom:<br />I misread my spreadsheet. Let's try again:<br />a) The probability of error by one reader is x. <br />If two independent readers, with the same error probability of x, disagree, that has probability of 2x*(1-x), because:<br />- one reader must make an error: probability x;<br />- the other reader must not make an error: probability (1-x); <br />- the readers can switch right/wrong roles.<br />Put it all together, and the probability of one reader (out of 2) getting it right and the other getting it wrong is 2 * x * (1-x) = 2x(1-x) which is never greater than 1/2.<br /><br />b) Another way in which two readers can disagree: they both get it wrong, but they judge different categories. Assuming for simplicity that the error would be equally in any of 6 directions, the probability would be:<br />x for one error;<br />x for the 2nd error;<br />5/6 that they don't agree on the category;<br />giving 5x^2/6 probability that they both get it wrong and disagree anyway.<br /><br />Thus, the probability that the two readers disagree is:<br />2x(1-x) + 5x^2/6 = D.<br /><br />For D = 0.33, this gives x = .185<br /><br />Correspondingly:<br />c) the probability they both get it right is (1-x)*(1-x);<br />d) the probability they both get it wrong, but agree on the evaluation is:<br />(1/6) * x * x = x^2/6.<br /><br />So the probability of agreement is:<br />A = (1-x)^2 + x^2/6<br /><br />Note that:<br />A + D = <br />[(1-x)^2 + x^/6] + [5x^2/6 + 2x(1-x)<br />= 1 - 2x + x^2 + x^2 + 2x - 2x^2] <br />= 1 identically.Neal J. Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05102929806447035848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33012006899891809742014-06-11T01:34:27.100-04:002014-06-11T01:34:27.100-04:00Kevin O'Neill writes:"The notion that a d...Kevin O'Neill writes:"<i>The notion that a disagreement between ratings indicates an error on the part of the raters is full of assumptions that I don't think can be justified.</i>"<br /><br />Umm ... I think he should have added. "with the data we have now."<br /><br />If we were truly interested in the rating uncertainty of each, or even a small subset, of the abstracts we could always run rating tests on them to see what the results from 100 raters might tell us. <br /><br />The fact that no one has done this means our collective laziness is probably greater than our collective need to know :)Kevin O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37262611413598844352014-06-11T01:08:07.370-04:002014-06-11T01:08:07.370-04:00Tom C writes: "...those with an open mind wil...Tom C writes: "<i>...those with an open mind will happily accept that humans err, and that therefore there are a small number of errors in Cook et al. They will even accept, if they follow the arguments, that classification is difficult so that there will be variation in classification at the margins, and that considering that Cook et al achieved a surprisingly low error rate....</i><br /><br />Tom, well said.<br /><br />I think the rhetorical vocabulary is what causes many of the points of contention. Since we are dealing not just with an ordinal scale, but a subjective scale, the disagreement/variation between raters/adjudicators can be either viewed as errors or simply as data.<br /><br />The implicit assumption is that discrepancies > 1 are 'genuine errors'. Why? <br /><br />If we knew the true value for each abstract then we could say that any deviation is rating error. Not knowing the true value, each rating can be viewed as an estimation of the true value. And rather than a constant measurement (rating) uncertainty for all abstracts it could just as easily (and more likely to my mind) be that some abstracts have a greater measurement uncertainty than others. <br /><br />By this latter understanding no rating can be erroneous unless we know the true value and the uncertainty of measurement (rating).<br /><br />The notion that a disagreement between ratings indicates an error on the part of the raters is full of assumptions that I don't think can be justified.<br /><br />Of course you prefaced the quote I used to start this comment with, "<i>...among people interested in the arcane enough to even follow this debate...</i>" and now I've let the cat out of the bag -- that I'm still following it :)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51062185644828448552014-06-11T00:48:35.909-04:002014-06-11T00:48:35.909-04:00Neal, if x is an error rate of 18.5%, than 2x = 1....Neal, if x is an error rate of 18.5%, than 2x = 1.63, and hence is not a probability. Adding a positive number only makes the problem worse, so your formula must be wrong.<br /><br />It is best to start by considering the ratings to be binary choices so that if it is not correct, then it is an error. Assume, further that all errors are independent so that no two raters make an error on the same abstract. Then, as any error creates a discrepancy, there will be 2x discrepancies where x is the error rate. Errors are not independent, however, so we must subtract the number of occasions when both raters make an error, ie, x^2, so the base formula is:<br />D = 2x - x^2<br /><br />This formula can be obtained algebraicly from the rate of agreements (=1-D = (1-x)^2). <br /><br />The situation is not binary, however, so two ratings both being incorrect do not necessarily agree with each other. With six equally possible errors, that gives you an error rate of 2x - (x^2)/6.<br /><br />I had another look, and the discrepancy is because Tol uses yet another formula. Using my formula, and equal probabilities the error rate estimate is approx 16.7% Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10300992238833903072014-06-10T21:40:50.707-04:002014-06-10T21:40:50.707-04:00Eli (8 June, 1:42 am), just over 9% of disagreemen...Eli (8 June, 1:42 am), just over 9% of disagreements between initial ratings and final ratings were larger than 1 point. These, at least, must be considered genuine errors by either the initial rater or the adjudicator. Further, given that large percentage, a significant percentage of those ratings disagreeing by just one point must be considered to be disagreements over papers that were near central values. That means the number of disagreements to which your sorites style argument applies is unknown. In consequence it is not possible to divide discrepancies into those which are genuine errors (even by your standard) and those which are mere discrepancies due to indeterminancy of classification. Further, that sub-analysis is irrelevant except at most for rhetorical points. Consequently it is better to have a single name for both.<br /><br />Further, as regards the rhetoric, among people interested in the arcane enough to even follow this debate, those with an open mind will happily accept that humans err, and that therefore there are a small number of errors in Cook et al. They will even accept, if they follow the arguments, that classification is difficult so that there will be variation in classification at the margins, and that considering that Cook et al achieved a surprisingly low error rate. Before they get to that point, however, they may well be put of by people insisting that what they can clearly see are errors are not.Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79365925476709162532014-06-10T14:27:18.826-04:002014-06-10T14:27:18.826-04:00Tom Curtis:
The way I calculate it, the probabili...Tom Curtis:<br /><br />The way I calculate it, the probability of a disagreement between two evaluations when the likelihood of "error" is x is: D = 2x(1-x) + 6*(x/6)^2<br /> = 2x(1-x) + (x^2)/6<br /><br />This breaks down into:<br />a) the likelihood that one rater gets right while the other gets it wrong; plus<br />b) the likelihood that both get it wrong - but agree on the answer (1 out of 6). Probabilities for erring in the direction of each category are assumed equal.<br />c) Tol set this expression, which I will denote as D, to be:<br />D = 0.33. Solving this with the quadratic formula, one infers that:<br />x = 18.5%<br />d) I believe you have an erroneous minus sign in the equation for D, leading you to the anti-intuitive conclusion that a greater likelihood of two raters agreeing in error <b>reduces</b> the remaining-error rate.<br />e) I need to think a bit more about how unequal probabilities affect things. My sense is that it gets ugly.Neal J. Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05102929806447035848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14314087940888602312014-06-09T23:16:32.712-04:002014-06-09T23:16:32.712-04:00Tyler Cowen seems to agree, while finding not unre...Tyler Cowen seems to agree, while finding not unrelated headlines:<br /><br />> The bottom line is this: right now agriculture is a laggard sector — in part due to state interventions — and this is not totally unrelated to recent headlines about unrest in the Middle East. <br /><br />http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/09/world-hunger-the-problem-left-behind.htmlwillardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46699965648843200122014-06-09T22:14:30.780-04:002014-06-09T22:14:30.780-04:00I think you should worry more about backing up awa...I think you should worry more about backing up away from the agricultural cliff you've created for yourselves, and into something a little more resistant to all those known agricultural disruption mechanisms and probabilities. Nothing makes humans more ornery and desperate than outright hunger.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43133333887960985352014-06-09T20:50:15.719-04:002014-06-09T20:50:15.719-04:00> You missed 'after it was demonstrated'...> You missed 'after it was demonstrated' [...]<br /><br />I said "it is irrelevant and wrong," which it what a demonstration usually implies. I could have said "after Thomas declares it irrelevant and wrong," to underline the question begged. In either case, Thomas dismissed the topic of this post not because it was wrong, but because he considers it irrelevant.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Another list, this time they're called <b>challenges</b>:<br /><br />1. How can sustainable development be achieved for all while addressing global climate change?<br /><br />2. How can everyone have sufficient clean water without conflict?<br /><br />3. How can population growth and resources be brought into balance?<br /><br />4. How can genuine democracy emerge from authoritarian regimes?<br /><br />5. How can policymaking be made more sensitive to global long-term perspectives?<br /><br />6. How can the global convergence of information and communications technologies work for everyone?<br /><br />7. How can ethical market economies be encouraged to help reduce the gap between rich and poor?<br /><br />8. How can the threat of new and reemerging diseases and immune micro-organisms be reduced?<br /><br />9. How can the capacity to decide be improved as the nature of work and institutions change?<br /><br />10. How can shared values and new security strategies reduce ethnic conflicts, terrorism, and the use of weapons of mass destruction?<br /><br />11. How can the changing status of women help improve the human condition?<br /><br />12. How can transnational organized crime networks be stopped from becoming more powerful and sophisticated global enterprises?<br /><br />13. How can growing energy demands be met safely and efficiently?<br /><br />14. How can scientific and technological breakthroughs be accelerated to improve the human condition?<br /><br />15. How can ethical considerations become more routinely incorporated into global decisions?<br /><br />http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/challeng.html/willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67808791058125154962014-06-09T20:20:14.917-04:002014-06-09T20:20:14.917-04:00Thomas does not always dismiss, but when he does, ...<i>Thomas does not always dismiss, but when he does, it's because it's irrelevant and wrong.</i><br /><br />You missed 'after it was demonstrated' to be irrelevant and wrong. This is where the smell test comes in. That saves a lot of time. Generally I give crackpots more of my time than people like you. The end result is generally the same,, but you never know, they might be giants.<br /><br />I don't think you have a very firm grasp of what constitutes credible solutions to biological problems on a terrestrial planet.<br />Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83468888971422355552014-06-09T19:17:29.875-04:002014-06-09T19:17:29.875-04:00Thomas does not always dismiss, but when he does, ...Thomas does not always dismiss, but when he does, it's because it's irrelevant and wrong.<br /><br />The most important bunny at Eli's is thus a true Scot.<br /><br />***<br /><br />More important problems:<br /><br /><br />1. War, terrorism, organized crime<br /><br />2. Violation of human rights, poverty, famine, water<br /><br />3. Destruction of nature, climate and the planet as a whole; deforestation, extinction of species, loss of biodiversity<br /><br />http://www.independencyproject.org/en/global-solutions-to-worlds-major-problems.html<br /><br />It even comes with solutions:<br /><br /><br />1. Nature First!<br />2. Full eradication of Tax Havens (bank secrecy, offshore "banking"<br />3. 100% VAT on TV commercials<br />4. From Corporations to Cooperatives<br />5. Introduce MAXIMUM wage<br />6. Educate and raise for society, not for profit.<br />7. Use hemp as sustainable alternative material on many levels.<br /><br />Bunnies love hemp, although some may prefer Soylent Green.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81077916175669966972014-06-09T19:13:14.963-04:002014-06-09T19:13:14.963-04:00Right, but you could be living on a super Earth wi...Right, but you could be living on a super Earth with no moon, so count your blessings you happen to be on a relatively small terrestrial planet barely able to support plate tectonics. And uphill is quantified we have numeric and computational symplectic integrators now that can easily handle anything you throw at it. And now get this, the technology we need to do this is pretty much the same as what we need to live sustainably on the Earth. Cryogenic production, storage and distribution, fuel cells, cooling, heat exchangers, solar electric, batteries, propulsion, life support, you name it, we need it cheaper and better. I guess you just missed that I suppose. Besides, you don't seem to understand. You have no choice anymore. It's a done deal. So get on with it. Hint : SLS and Orion in their current form are not 'it'. It seems to me you have a real NASA problem on your hands as well.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4529828058774365422014-06-09T18:52:52.251-04:002014-06-09T18:52:52.251-04:00I'm guessing at least Musk and Stross both und...I'm guessing at least Musk and Stross both understand that the moon is a long way and uphill from low earth orbit.<br /><br />Musk's genius is manifest not so much in replicating what others have done for a half-century, nor in profiting from the publicly funded R&D involved in that, but in gaining the admiration for the same from the people who wrote the checks.afemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08364320934289732272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22406013990544822272014-06-09T18:51:35.398-04:002014-06-09T18:51:35.398-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.afemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08364320934289732272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30464620054928336352014-06-09T16:05:18.383-04:002014-06-09T16:05:18.383-04:00I find it very easy to dismiss something long afte...I find it very easy to dismiss something long after it has been demonstrated to be both irrelevant and wrong. Richard Tol, in a nutshell. Maybe his next paper will be an improvement, lol (as in relevant, not fraught with errors and not fundamentally wrong). That part I am not dismissive of in the least.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46058818627715707672014-06-09T15:53:22.419-04:002014-06-09T15:53:22.419-04:00I point at this:
> I don't mind discussin...I point at this:<br /><br />> I don't mind discussing these things, but not with a bunch of dismissivists, lol.<br /><br />And I point at Thomas' overall contribution in this thread.<br /><br />That is all.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86208526522286887862014-06-09T14:41:45.244-04:002014-06-09T14:41:45.244-04:00Right, so invest all those millions and billions i...Right, so invest all those millions and billions in mutual funds, so you don't have to worry about all the environmental and ecological damage your investments have wrought. It's not your fault!<br /><br />It's death by proxy. I don't mind discussing these things, but not with a bunch of dismissivists, lol.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80294656999628233422014-06-09T13:42:20.563-04:002014-06-09T13:42:20.563-04:00Speaking of shit Elon says:
> You know, life h...Speaking of shit Elon says:<br /><br />> You know, life has to be about more than solving problems. If all that life is about is solving problems then why bother getting up in the morning?<br /><br />http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/npc-luncheon-with-elon-musk-2011-09-29<br />willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46649291636822723182014-06-09T10:24:40.931-04:002014-06-09T10:24:40.931-04:00I didn't say anything about going to Mars, tha...I didn't say anything about going to Mars, that was presumptions from you idiots. Let me explain it to you, Charlie Stross is a science fiction author. Is that where you get your freakin science? That explains a lot about the state of the biosphere. Elon Musk built his own rocket engine and rocket. Get over it. You can't stop it now.<br /><br />Your logic is laughably tragic. Normally I would not even bother to debate someone so naive, someone so behind the curve both technologically and scientifically. It's just a waste of time for me. All I can say is get out there and educate yourself. Start <a href="http://arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I regularly blog titles that I feel are relevant to your problems. I regularly publish essays on these subjects as well. Even better, get yourself an education, and do try not to quantify that with degrees.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12583419762751448712014-06-09T10:14:43.835-04:002014-06-09T10:14:43.835-04:00Tommy neatly sidesteps the question. So, we ask o...Tommy neatly sidesteps the question. So, we ask once again, why go to Mars, what is the point, and who will benefit from it?<br />guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35269021957849472032014-06-09T10:09:40.315-04:002014-06-09T10:09:40.315-04:00Charlie Stross does the math here:
Tommy does his...<i>Charlie Stross does the math here:</i><br /><br />Tommy does his own math. Elon Musk is a multi-billionaire. Charlie Stoss is not. QED.<br /><br />Tommy asks, who is Charlie Stoss?Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85751163320333876072014-06-09T10:05:19.370-04:002014-06-09T10:05:19.370-04:00Interplanetary colonisalism in any population-effe...<i>Interplanetary colonisalism in any population-effective form is a pipe-dream of the highest order, and we'll have Quiddich on Firebolts as an Olympic sport before we see interplanetary settlement beyond a few shivering, starving and suffocating suicides on Mars.</i><br /><br />I'm pretty confident I can file that with numerous other statements such as 'spaceflight is utter drivel', 'if man were meant to fly' and 'who needs more than 640K'. The only thing that will stop this is the collapse of civilization. That is the alternative that you propose.<br /><br />Good luck with that, fool. Please, by all means, feel free to make a fool of yourself here. Everybody knows superconductivity above 22.5 K is impossible. Now tell me, what is the average yearly number of airline passengers. Quickly now, billions of dollars of revenue are at stake.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1927098366341289462014-06-09T09:35:27.347-04:002014-06-09T09:35:27.347-04:00Charlie Stross does the math here:
http://www.ant...Charlie Stross does the math here:<br /><br />http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html<br /><br />He quotes Bruce Sterling:<br /><br />"I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the same time I see people settling the Gobi Desert. The Gobi Desert is about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper and easier to reach. Nobody ever writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well, it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's no good reason to go there and live. It's ugly, it's inhospitable and there's no way to make it pay. Mars is just the same, really. We just romanticize it because it's so hard to reach."afemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08364320934289732272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59575046104801318912014-06-09T04:48:05.349-04:002014-06-09T04:48:05.349-04:00"Bunnies should never underestimate the power..."<i>Bunnies should never underestimate the power of a good shower.</i>"<br /><br />I'm not sure what Musk was doing in the shower, but at least some of it was an excursion into fantasy.<br /><br />I've said that I've said it before and that I'll say it again, so I'll say it again... Interplanetary colonisalism in any population-effective form is a pipe-dream of the highest order, and we'll have Quiddich on Firebolts as an Olympic sport before we see interplanetary settlement beyond a few shivering, starving and suffocating suicides on Mars.<br /><br />Thermodynamics says "no", and no business plan has addressed the inescapable energy budget, let alone the ecosystem transplant/compatibility issues involved or the ethics of colonising habitable planets if they happen to already support life. And as evidence of the infeasibility of interplanetary (and especially interstellar) colonialism, I tender the fact that our planet is still absent any little green aliens.<br /><br />We have one blue marble in the whole universe. It's our alpha and omega, and anyone who imagines otherwise is simply getting in the way of making sure that omega is as far away as possible.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48935454946088795772014-06-08T18:04:22.909-04:002014-06-08T18:04:22.909-04:00> The math was all done by otters and Eli merel...> The math was all done by otters and Eli merely posted their results.<br /><br />Indeed, and the other Anonymous should simply have had to post his results on ArXiV, instead of bothering Eli with it. Blogging is so useless. We should leave everything to interpreters of interpretations.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Some more problems:<br /><br />> Sustainable energy, Internet, and making life multi-planetary.<br /><br />http://www.inc.com/elon-musk/elon-musk-tesla-spacex-solve-world-problems.html<br /><br />He also mentions AI and cryogenics, but he admits there are still question marks on these two.<br /><br />Bunnies should never underestimate the power of a good shower.<br /><br />willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.com