The discussion revolves around a variation of the Liar's Paradox, specifically the statement "Statistics are wrong 90% of the time." Participants explore the implications of this statement and its relationship to truth and probability, considering other variations like "Statistics are wrong 50% of the time." The scope includes conceptual analysis and philosophical reasoning.
Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of the paradox and the implications of the statements discussed.
Participants express varying interpretations of the statements and their implications, with some relying on definitions of probability and truth that remain unresolved in the discussion.
This makes utterly no sense to me.rmberwin said:A variation of the Liar's Paradox occurred to me: "Statistics are wrong 90% of the time". This statement seems to refutes itself, but does so in a less straightforward way. I would appreciate any insights! And what about the statement, "Statistics are wrong 50% of the time"? (Even odds.)
Anything less than a certainty of 100% removes the paradox. It leaves the possibility that the statement is true.rmberwin said:A variation of the Liar's Paradox occurred to me: "Statistics are wrong 90% of the time". This statement seems to refutes itself, but does so in a less straightforward way. I would appreciate any insights! And what about the statement, "Statistics are wrong 50% of the time"? (Even odds.)
But if the statement is true, then it is probably (90%) false. That is the paradox.FactChecker said:Anything less than a certainty of 100% removes the paradox. It leaves the possibility that the statement is true.
"Probably" is not the same as definitely. That is why it is not a paradox.rmberwin said:But if the statement is true, then it is probably (90%) false. That is the paradox.
If the statement is true, then it is one of the 10% of true statements. No paradox.rmberwin said:But if the statement is true, then it is probably (90%) false. That is the paradox.