The craziest thing about all those people bashing her was these were supposed to be people with phD's. Any one of them could have provided a proof of why she was wrong if they were correct. That is literally the protocol for any mathematical argument.
In the field of mathematics, especially postgraduate level, it is disturbing to see that…
The craziest thing about all those people bashing her was these were supposed to be people with phD's. Any one of them could have provided a proof of why she was wrong if they were correct. That is literally the protocol for any mathematical argument.
In the field of mathematics, especially postgraduate level, it is disturbing to see that many 'academics' skip the part of proving their statement or even providing some sort of logical counterargument of hers.
Thanks again for posting this article. I learned a lot here. I sincerely thought the Monte Hall problem was just a canonical problem in probability mainly used to show the failure of intuition even in the simplest bayesian example. Similar to the problems where you can show 99% effective is misleading...
Arguing from a point of authority is a very dangerous thing.
The craziest thing about all those people bashing her was these were supposed to be people with phD's. Any one of them could have provided a proof of why she was wrong if they were correct. That is literally the protocol for any mathematical argument.
In the field of mathematics, especially postgraduate level, it is disturbing to see that many 'academics' skip the part of proving their statement or even providing some sort of logical counterargument of hers.
Thanks again for posting this article. I learned a lot here. I sincerely thought the Monte Hall problem was just a canonical problem in probability mainly used to show the failure of intuition even in the simplest bayesian example. Similar to the problems where you can show 99% effective is misleading...
Arguing from a point of authority is a very dangerous thing.