Are they serious?
Mar. 18th, 2009 10:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mbarkerI probably shouldn't let this bother me, but the news this morning had a very short piece "scientifically predicting" that Japan would win the world baseball contest.
They had three pieces of evidence. First was something about the type of stadium where the game is being held. I suppose that could affect the games. The second was the color of the Japan team uniforms. Apparently they have blue uniforms and white uniforms, and whichever one they're wearing this time, the analyst -- and I use the term with no hint as to his actual qualifications -- the analyst felt that this color gave them a distinct edge. Again, if I grit my teeth very hard, I might manage to convince myself that there is some connection between the color of the team uniforms and winning and losing.
The third, and final, piece of evidence -- and the analyst seemed to feel this was conclusive -- had to do with the state of the Sakura trees in Japan. Apparently if the cherry blossoms are blooming, the Japanese team will win. And he showed his statistical evidence -- two previous games when the cherry blossoms were not blooming and the team lost, and two games when they were blooming and the team won. And this time they're blooming.
I almost screamed at the TV, "Sample size! Margin of error? Correlation is not causation!" and other statistical phrases, but it was still early morning, and I didn't want to frighten the neighbors.
What really frightens me is that I think there are quite a few people who would believe him. After all, it's scientific, with statistics and everything. And the analyst certainly sounded serious. If they say it on TV, it must be true, right?
They had three pieces of evidence. First was something about the type of stadium where the game is being held. I suppose that could affect the games. The second was the color of the Japan team uniforms. Apparently they have blue uniforms and white uniforms, and whichever one they're wearing this time, the analyst -- and I use the term with no hint as to his actual qualifications -- the analyst felt that this color gave them a distinct edge. Again, if I grit my teeth very hard, I might manage to convince myself that there is some connection between the color of the team uniforms and winning and losing.
The third, and final, piece of evidence -- and the analyst seemed to feel this was conclusive -- had to do with the state of the Sakura trees in Japan. Apparently if the cherry blossoms are blooming, the Japanese team will win. And he showed his statistical evidence -- two previous games when the cherry blossoms were not blooming and the team lost, and two games when they were blooming and the team won. And this time they're blooming.
I almost screamed at the TV, "Sample size! Margin of error? Correlation is not causation!" and other statistical phrases, but it was still early morning, and I didn't want to frighten the neighbors.
What really frightens me is that I think there are quite a few people who would believe him. After all, it's scientific, with statistics and everything. And the analyst certainly sounded serious. If they say it on TV, it must be true, right?
