Timeline for Does the presence of an outlier increase the probability that another outlier will also be present on the same observation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 2018 at 23:11 | vote | accept | Taal | ||
| Nov 1, 2013 at 22:58 | history | bounty ended | Taal | ||
| Nov 1, 2013 at 22:57 | vote | accept | Taal | ||
| Oct 17, 2018 at 23:11 | |||||
| Oct 31, 2013 at 12:14 | comment | added | Taal | ^^ Very good point & thank you for pointing that out. I wish I thought about that before. Sadly, both of these comments are below the comment fold and I frustratingly can't edit that now...agh. | |
| Oct 31, 2013 at 11:31 | comment | added | Nick Cox | Readers whose first language is not informal American may need to consult onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/sick or some other source to understand that "SICK" is intended positively. Localised slang is better avoided on international sites; that's not to say that we should all write pompously, far from it, but to flag that's there is more risk of slang being understood. | |
| Oct 31, 2013 at 11:09 | comment | added | Taal | And really, this concept is already used in government for more intelligent law enforcement for example and a variety of other fields that one could make analogous to "finding a needle in a haystack" in the situation where the resources for combing through EVERYTHING just do not exist. | |
| Oct 31, 2013 at 11:07 | comment | added | Taal | There is irony in this perceived practicality one gains by "rationalism" though. You see, pending one assumes everything is connected in some way (which intuitively and at first glance allow "for the human race to rule the world" or really makes things more practical)....this conjecture, when assumed as a weak tendency, has very practical applications. Think about machine learning pending certain computational resources on massive amounts of data - you program the machine to investigate an observation with an outlier for other strange characteristics for greater efficiecy. | |
| Oct 31, 2013 at 10:59 | comment | added | Taal | Exactly. Although you don't fully admit above to the first concept that "everything is connected to everything else," you do at least insinuate it :) I only say this because you agree with me, as I've said in your comments and a few others I just made that we put these labels for the sake of practicality. Thus, simply by process of elimination I'm presuming you do agree - but I'd be curious as to your true opinion, because if so...it looks like we have a proof pending one assumes there is some connection between everything. To me, I'm not sure how that's not true - but can't prove it. | |
| Oct 31, 2013 at 10:14 | comment | added | Alecos Papadopoulos | There has been a time where Science was subsumed in Philosophy. In the old days, people instinctively felt that "everything is connected to everything else", and built their attempts to understand the world around this principle, and trying to make it operational. Rationalism emerged because the human race proved slow and sloppy in this herculean task: and rationalism means narrowing your view in order to obtain applicable results. It is an ugly compromise, I know, but it was the price to pay in order for the human race to rule the world -a world it fundamentally misunderstands. | |
| Oct 31, 2013 at 9:40 | comment | added | Taal | The last part "good-bye i.i.d samples..." - yes - without sarcasm this time though - truly indeed :) Goodbye i.i.d samples. You don't exist. Keep in mind though, I'd still say there's a greater tendency for my conjecture to appear or manifest itself (but not a greater one for it to be true...as it's always true as a tendency across nature/universe) the more the dependence between variables is obvious/intense. | |
| Oct 31, 2013 at 9:35 | comment | added | Taal | ..cont.. also introduce artificiality. Before I go deeper, I want to clarify I'm speaking of the idea of an "independent variable." No variable is truly "indepedent" in nature/the universe- however we must assume some if not most are "indepedent" because it's not feasible to incorporate all potential permutations and level of complexity of thus in a manner that is practical in reality, we must actually make this assumption. | |
| Oct 31, 2013 at 9:29 | comment | added | Taal | @Alecos_Papadopoulos Not gonna lie, this is a SICK answer - and the type I've genuinely been looking for - as I can't write a sort of proof like that. But it comes from you with unintended consequences. I've actually noticed that as I explain this to anyone I know - those who are actually less mathematically inclined surprisingly understand it and agree with it in comparison to those who do - as those who are mathematically inclined can't help but put generalized labels on things as a matter of habit (afterall, labels do make things much easier and efficient - the problem is they ...cont.. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 12:37 | history | edited | Alecos Papadopoulos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1259 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2013 at 11:28 | history | answered | Alecos Papadopoulos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |