**GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives**

From:"Peter A. Kincaid" <>Subject:Re: [DNA] Re: STATISTICAL DISCUSSION at DNA-D Digest V03 #709Date:Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:22:07 -0400In-Reply-To:<1ad.1cac01e5.2cf02c76@aol.com>At 10:05 PM 21/11/03 EST, you wrote:

>Referring to the professional-level discussion involving > Bayes' theorem

for

>> conditional probability:

>>

>> Pr(2M | 2k, t) = Pr(2k | 2M, t) * Pr(2M | t) / Prob(2k | t)

>>

>The discussion brought to mind a question I have often entertained while

>reading DNA-D Digest: I really wonder how many of those who engage in the

>colloquium have any feel at all for the laws governing statistical

inference. I am one

>of those who are really observing from the outside. It seems much too

complex

>a subject for me to wrap my brain around. I have a book in my library,

>titled: "How to Lie with Statistics" and in that volume is this aphorism:

"There are

>three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

One has to remember that the whole system is based on assumptions; namely

axioms. Change you assumptions and you get a whole new perspective. One

just

has to walk down the road of non-ecludian geometry to get my drift. This

is where I bailed out in university. Made me wonder whether it was all

invented to waste a lot of time avoiding good old fashioned common sense! ;-)

Peter A. Kincaid

Hampton, NB, Canada

**This thread:**