How to Be Wrong (2016)
mathenchant.wordpress.com
How to Be Wrong (2016)
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)
#2Be right, from a different point of view.
Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)
#3vos Savant's article on this that lists highlights from the letters:
Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)
#4As a CS university lecturer, I acknowledge that there is little room for exploration, and the chance of being wrong, in most assessment schemes. Any mistake loses points and lowers the GPA, so nobody likes to make mistakes, however creative and interesting. Shame. The system cannot be easily revised because the students themselves oppose it. To them it seems intuitively unfair that somehow those who make mistakes may get the same points as those who get it right.
Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)
#5Wow, I liked it (although none of the Monty Hall story was new to me) until the part where he was disgustingly dismissive and insulting to Semmelweis. Then I stopped reading. A less sympathetic account can hardly be imagined, I thought it was shameful.
Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)
#6Wow, I liked it (although none of the Monty Hall story was new to me) until the part where he was disgustingly dismissive and insulting to Semmelweis. Then I stopped reading. A less sympathetic account can hardly be imagined, I thought it was shameful.
Weird that you would stop reading for that, and announce it here. As if there's some virtue in turning away in disgust.
Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)
#7As a CS university lecturer, I acknowledge that there is little room for exploration, and the chance of being wrong, in most assessment schemes. Any mistake loses points and lowers the GPA, so nobody likes to make mistakes, however creative and interesting. Shame. The system cannot be easily revised because the students themselves oppose it. To them it seems intuitively unfair that somehow those who make mistakes may…
You didn't read their first point - if you're going to be wrong, do so in private. You should be making as many mistakes as possible at home or after hours so that by class or test time you never make them again. Mistakes are a way of learning but not a way of doing. After all, the entirety of life was built with 1 tool - the mistake.
Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)
#8vos Savant's article on this that lists highlights from the letters: http://marilynvossavant.com/game-show-problem/
The Monty Hall problem, as it is initially stated by vos Savant (and even in this link) is not well written. It make implicit assumptions about the host behavior.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_...
If this had been clear from the beginning, there would not have been so much confusion about this problem. So in this case, vos Savant is also quite "wrong".
Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)
#9[deleted]
Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)
#10Wow, I liked it (although none of the Monty Hall story was new to me) until the part where he was disgustingly dismissive and insulting to Semmelweis. Then I stopped reading. A less sympathetic account can hardly be imagined, I thought it was shameful.
Weird that you would stop reading for that, and announce it here. As if there's some virtue in turning away in disgust.
Don't be snarky
I'm offering a severe criticism of the writer, and sticking up for Semmelweis. I'm not sure what you're doing, besides tempting me to use the phrase 'virtue signalling' for the first time ever.