If 5 out of 6 agree then why does the 1 disagree?

We all operate on incomplete understanding, even in areas where we have expertise. The idea that several experts can form consensus allows us to give a probabilistic estimate that the findings are reliable. It's not an assertion that consensus is true, but that we have 5 out of 6 odds it's good information.

In cases where this information is vital to a person or organizations well-being it's worthwhile to understand the position of the odd-man out.

If something is unimportant we can use this aggregate value to help us make an immediate, imperfect decision, because it's insignificant. In the instances where it's vital to society, personal well-being, etc, then it becomes increasingly important to have a complete picture rather than accepting the high-level summary.

Humanities picture of the world is still very much incomplete. We all work on varying probabilities day-in and day-out. At a certain point all research stops, whether it's accounted for all side-effects and other nuances that weren't a part of the core study.

In other words, be smart and dig in to details where and when it matters. Don't waste your life reading the small print when you have other things that you feel or think are more worth your time. Sure you'll miss things, but console yourself knowing that everyone's wrong on many, many things.

The aphorism, "don't believe everything you read" extends to a much larger concept "don't trust everything you know." I'm not advocating the nihilist philosophy. Some things are completely knowable (i.e. checkers is a solvable game). However in areas where you have 5 out of 6 odds, that's obviously not the case.

Best wishes on a very indeterminate future

[edit on 9-7-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by Xtraeme
We all work on varying probabilities day-in and day-out.

Probability. Quantum theory (don't say it's fake - researchers at Yale created a functional quantum computer chip that can solve simple algorithims, google it) tells us that nothing in the universe is 100% certain, therefore it is physically impossible for 100% of everyone to agree on a certain thing becuase of probability and quantum physics. Like it has been said if they majority falls into a similar spot, then that is the majority - there is still the probability that it will not fall in the majority though, that is the whole basis of quantum theory. Look up quantum tunneling in relation to the sun and you'll understand it better.

Basically, its physically impossible for 100% certainty, thats why only 5 out of 6 agree.

Originally posted by dviper785

Originally posted by Xtraeme
We all work on varying probabilities day-in and day-out.

Probability. Quantum theory (don't say it's fake - researchers at Yale created a functional quantum computer chip that can solve simple algorithims, google it)

You do realize you're advocating that nothing is 100% true, yet you're promoting quantum theory as though it is. Sorry had to say it.

tells us that nothing in the universe is 100% certain, therefore it is physically impossible for 100% of everyone to agree on a certain thing becuase of probability and quantum physics. ... Basically, its physically impossible for 100% certainty, thats why only 5 out of 6 agree.

Things can be 100% deterministic inside of a specific domain using explicit constraints. For instance your computer works day in and day out because the MOV, ADD, SUB operations on the processor behave exactly the same way, every time. The only time this isn't true is when the processor starts to fail due to age, heat, or other external stimuli like an electrical surge. Thus this caveat represents the constraint.

Likewise in math we can build on past knowledge using corollaries because abstract proofs have been demonstrated to continue to hold in a particular domain (human knowledge) despite being built on core axioms that have no proof and are simply self-evident. No one contests the identity axiom B = B.

As a simple test get 6 people together and ask them, "Does B = B?"

The assertion that it's physically impossible for 100% certainty should be viewed as a mathematical limit. Sometimes we approach so close the two are virtually the same despite their still being an underlying constraint that makes it hold 100% of the time. Removing the constraint it might instead represent 99.9999999999999999...% accuracy rounded up, which still presents enough accuracy to say it's reliably true.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by dviper785

Originally posted by Xtraeme
We all work on varying probabilities day-in and day-out.

Probability. Quantum theory (don't say it's fake - researchers at Yale created a functional quantum computer chip that can solve simple algorithims, google it)

You do realize you're advocating that nothing is 100% true, yet you're promoting quantum theory as though it is. Sorry had to say it.

tells us that nothing in the universe is 100% certain, therefore it is physically impossible for 100% of everyone to agree on a certain thing becuase of probability and quantum physics. ... Basically, its physically impossible for 100% certainty, thats why only 5 out of 6 agree.

Things can be 100% deterministic inside of a specific domain using explicit constraints. For instance your computer works day in and day out because the MOV, ADD, SUB operations on the processor behave exactly the same way, every time. The only time this isn't true is when the processor starts to fail due to age, heat, or other external stimuli like an electrical surge. Thus this caveat represents the constraint.

Likewise in math we can build on past knowledge using corollaries because abstract proofs have been demonstrated to continue to hold in a particular domain (human knowledge) despite being built on core axioms that have no proof and are simply self-evident. No one contests the identity axiom B = B.

As a simple test get 6 people together and ask them, "Does B = B?"

The assertion that it's physically impossible for 100% certainty should be viewed as a mathematical limit. Sometimes we approach so close the two are virtually the same despite their still being an underlying constraint that makes it hold 100% of the time. Removing the constraint it might instead represent 99.9999999999999999...% accuracy rounded up, which still presents enough accuracy to say it's reliably true.

Yes this is exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying quantum theory isn't fake is because the researchers were able to hold 2 qbits in quantum superpostion long enough to process an algorithim, making verifiable physical evidence of quantum theory. And like I said, quantum theory is based on probability, so with verifiable physical evidence of quantum theory, I think that provides a high enough probabilty for me to state it's not a made up theory as some classical physists will agrue.

And the 99.9% is what I meant by quantum theory prevents us from calling something as 100% true. I'm sure triednt didnt only ask 6 dentists about their gum. I bet they used a sample of some number of thousand dentists, and reduced to the simplest fraction of 5/6, or 83%. 83% of 1 billion samples from dentists would be 830 million, leaving 170 million dentists who still don't think trident is the best.

And the sun for example, the nuclear reaction that takes place does not release photons (visible light) outside the reaction, when you actually calculate the math equations that take place.

There is a 99.9999999999999999999% chance that the sun won't release any light, but beacuse of that 0.000000000000000001% chance that one of the photons will quantum tunnel through and start shooting towards the earth, viola! the sun releases light and is very bright. That gives you an idea on how even with a small probability of 0.00000000000000001% things we view as normal still tend to happen, like the sun releasing light when from a classical physics perspective it should not. That is my point that nothing is 100% certain, it's determined by the quantum probability cloud of the particles and waves in question.

Soooo, the upper limit of dentists is theoreticaly 5.99999999999/6 agreeing on trident being the best gum, is my point.

But that would be silly to print on a gum package.

Very interesting conversation to say the least but that wasn't exactly what
I was getting at the idea that those that dissent can help provide a chance to possibily view the "big picture" on something. Not just our own limited viewpoints.
Well, more or less.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Very interesting conversation to say the least but that wasn't exactly what
I was getting at the idea that those that dissent can help provide a chance to possibily view the "big picture" on something. Not just our own limited viewpoints.
Well, more or less.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

That's what I'm trying to explain, those who dissent, say the 5% out of 95% total, show the outrt limits of a quantum probability cloud, and thus, the "big picture" of all possible outcomes