As usual, the skeptopath reads it completely wrong so that he can hold onto his belief system: I explicitly wrote " rolled the dice 6*14,720 times " and then the yield.
Joshua Cude is here to sneer and debunk, even when he's completely proven wrong. On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other >> thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times >> and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all >> of those hits were misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you >> want to establish that the chance is higher, then make the case for it -- >> but it has never happened, ever before, in the history of science). So in >> order for all those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720, >> which is the figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude. >> >> >> >> > > No, man. You're doing it wrong. The chance you're calculating is if they > made exactly 14720 experiments, and all of them hit. > > If they made 3*1470 experiments, and the chance of a misread is 1/3, then > you would *expect* something close to 1470 hits. >
