You are still not getting it. You made bad example - dropping stones - what has good scientific answer (gravity), you do not need inject statistics and probability into it. I would even say that your example is disingenuous because with your (bad) example you create impression that probability estimations are simple and easy. But they are not, especially in real world. The way you chose to answer to my own example about coin toss perfectly demonstrates it. Coin toss is simple example, but you are not able to give simple straight answer. You made your answer conditional (pure or not pure coin) and changing this one little condition you created two totally different answers.Franklin said:Oh my how hilarious.
And yet the correct answer is once again: HEADS. The coin is not pure. This is why from a sufficiently big sample you should see a certain spread. If you see that spread there can be drawn conclusions.
You are really confused here because you want me to answer: The outcome of a coin toss is not predestined by an earlier coin toss. This is very true... but if we have a coin, toss it 100 times we certainly can guess what's most likely to happen unless it's really a pure coin. In your truely moronic example there can only be one answer. The fact that you do not understand this explains exactly why you can't analyze your way out of this.
Again, some people are just hilarious
Imagine how many conditions, facts, known and unknown, uncertainties exists judging real world (pro cycling) situations. Dont pretend that you can make confident judgements, confident probability estimations.
I havent seen facts.Franklin said:What a fantastic strawman. Because what Franklin did... was mention several indisputable facts which have everything to do with doping. Franklin did not use pictures or the position of the sun. He used facts.
Strawmen, I despise them. But this was to be expected.