Alarming News

August 28, 2007

Sorry

I apologize to Tom “Funkypundit” Elliott’s mom for sending every pro-smoking story to her son.

Posted by Karol at 01:51 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Type II error. That is all.

Posted by: David at August 28, 2007 at 9:12 pm

I kid because I love.

Posted by: David at August 29, 2007 at 7:19 am

I don’t get it.

Posted by: Karol at August 29, 2007 at 10:22 am

You talkin’ smack ’bout my momma?!

Posted by: FunkyPundit at August 29, 2007 at 12:02 pm

No! I was apologizing to her that every pro-smoking story on your blog has a hat-tip to me at the end of it. :-)

Posted by: Karol at August 29, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I was actually talking to David. I didn’t understand his comment either.

Posted by: FunkyPundit at August 29, 2007 at 3:24 pm

type II error is also called a “false negative”
for our purposes, the “null hypothesis” is “cigarette smoking has no effect on lifespan.
the scientist then tests this hypothesis.
a type I error (a false positive) would be an error that falsely causes us to reject this null hypothesis when we probably should have accepted it.
a type II error (a false negative) would cause us to accept this null hypothesis when we probably should have rejected it (in favor of “smoking does lower one’s expected lifespan).
However all this is irrelevant when discussing the gov’ts oppressive policy towards smoking. Very few people in favor of smoking actually try to claim that it has no negative effects on the smoker.
Mostly they argue: so what if there are negative effects?
Even if I grant somebody that smoking is deadly to me… unless you can show that it is a danger to someone else in the manner in which I use it (in my own property, or in property where the owner allows smoking on his own property and allows those that disagree the right to leave) what point is made?

Posted by: E5 at August 29, 2007 at 4:43 pm

E5 got it.
a type II error (a false negative) would cause us to accept this null hypothesis when we probably should have rejected it (in favor of “smoking does lower one’s expected lifespan).

Posted by: David at August 30, 2007 at 10:35 am

David, I don’t see how that applies. I never suggested that because smoking in some cases does not lead to a shortened lifespan, it therefore lengthens your life. I said it is possible to smoke cigarettes and for it not to affect your lifespan. In other words, the two are totally disconnected from one another — if, as in this case, it’s used in limited circumstances.

Posted by: FunkyPundit at August 30, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Post a comment