Question:
Of course, the picking of 40 black marbles from an urn is not proof that there are more black marbles in the urn than white, only that in one sample of 40 picks the order of marbles chosen were toward one end of the scale of possiblilty rather than toward the middle or toward the other end (all white chosen). Unlikely as this event is--the drawing of 40 black in a row from any mix--it is still possible statistically to happen in the first attempt, although very unlikely. Much the same as a big lottery winner is a statistical improbability in the order of millions to one against for any given individual ticket holder, but it does happen with some regularity that there is a very lucky winner. Same applies to the Lutens sample. Odds are it is representative but the possibility it isn't does exist.

Answer:
After you are finished with this I'd love for you to take on the whole mare's nest of the propositions "x and y smell nothing alike" and "whattdyamean? I'm gonna knock yer block off!".

Answer:
Oh lordy! I've realised that I'm debating semantics with an expert on semantics – cut that, a Johnny Depp look-a-like semantics-book-writing expert. Ah well, into the valley of death …!
It may be helpful to take a Popperian approach (All Life is Problem-Solving) . Why did this thread arise? Because the use of generalisations, or the response to them, was causing problems. What is the appropriate response?
A) ignore it - for most situations I would go for this option. If we qualified everything we said then our style would become cramped and unreadable (like this). If people fall out and flame each other, it is not the end of the world and actually makes for great spectator sport. Most of the time the generalisations are not important, i.e. they do operate in the way Eluard describes (generalisation - ‘What is a ‘suit and tie’ scent?’; Answer that ignores generalisation - ‘Chanel PMC’; Inappropriate response - ‘How dare you, I wear Chanel PMC with rubber lederhosen at my private members club!’).
B) interpret generalisations as Bayesian exercises – generalisation - ‘Tea for Two is a great hermaphrodite scent’, Bayesian answer ‘Yes it is, though I’m a hermaphrodite and I can’t stand it’, inappropriate response ‘How dare you, I’m a hermaphrodite – are you saying that we are all the same, that we have the same tastes, eh, eh??!!’
I am not saying that the ‘inappropriate response’ is the best interpretation of the question, but I do thing is an understandable response. The contexts in which generalisations or stereotypes have caused problems, in the last few months, have been ‘old ladies’ and gay people and to a lesser extent ‘old men’ and teenyboppers. That is, a problem-solving approach would concentrate on the nature/context/effect of the generalisation rather than its formation as linguistic shorthand, so …
C) where a poster uses a generalisation which involves stereotyping in a negative way or even stereotyping of traditionally disenfranchised groups – an appropriate response would be not to tear a strip off them, but to clarify the real meaning ‘We all know there is no intrinsically hermaphrodite fragrance, but do you mean scents that are popular amongst hermaphrodite members of Basenotes or scents that people have noticed being common in hermaphrodite clubs?’
(… waits for the Russian artillery to open up ...)
---------------------------
More off topic – Popper’s philosophy of science certainly has had an impact beyond the UK. The leading US case on when to admit evidence from new scientific techniques (Daubert) is based on Popper’s theory. I’m surprised that Popper’s political philosophy (with its pragmatic, anti-absolutist nature) never found more of a home in the US.
Whatever the efforts of the LSE, Popper is deeply unfashionable in the UK and has been for at least 15 years.
BTW I’m teaching a law class to forensic scientists next month that touches briefly on Bayes theorem. I actually understand it better now – so thank you on their behalf!

Answer:
This thread makes my head hurt ... ;-)

Answer:
I am not sure of the context of this discussion as I don't know which thread it was lifted from, so forgive me (and please inform me) if I am way off the mark here. I think we are having a discussion about people being offended by generalistions.
My 2ps worth:
1)Assumptions and generalisations are always limiting if they are not consciously stated and agreed upon by all involved in a discussion.
2)Groups often make generalisations. These can serve various purposes:-
i)They provide shorthand and thus save time by making it unneccasary to define terms AGAIN. This requires previous agreement of terms, explicit or implicit. Implicit contains the danger that individuals or sub-groups may not be happy with the assumptions but are afraid or lack skill to express this.
ii)They help to define the group. This can be a positive deliniation (we are together because we all believe x to be true, therefore we can have meaningful discourse) or negative deliniation (we are together because we are not like those others).
3)Offence to others is much less likely if a group (or individual) defines itself in a positive manner than in a negative one (I like youthfull, energetic fragrances as opposed to I don't want to smell like an old man)
4)Stating the desire not to be like another individual or group always contains the potential to offend.

Answer:
Originally Posted by ifconfig This thread makes my head hurt ... ;-) It makes me giggle. Look how intellectual everyone is! I feel like someone ought to jump in here and ask what scent is best for getting babes in da club.
But seriously, I agree with what's being said here. Unfortunately, I can't see this post doing much good. The people who are contributing here aren't the ones responsible for instigating flame wars and taking offense at accidental generalizations. I can just see someone telling an agitated BNer that their anger is unwarranted because they just read a meaningless bayesian generalization. The response would be something along the lines of "OH SO YOU'RE ON THEIR SIDE, EH?!"
Debating semantics is fun and all, but we need a way to constructively implement these ideas if they're actually going to improve the quality of discourse around here. Maybe make a sticky about bayesian probabilities? Hehe that would actually be really funny.

Answer:
I have used Bayes theorem in many of my research projects. For a rigorous mathematical elaboration of the theorem, check out :

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/

Section 1 should be easily understandable by all.

Answer:
Originally Posted by michaeld39 (… waits for the Russian artillery to open up ...) Ask and ye shall receive.
Fire mission: counter-battery. Triangulate and ... <chops air with hand> ... огонь!
... this was a fun read (not "haha" kind of funny, a different sort). i could possibly contribute in like manner, but will take a different approach.
... i like Eluard's scientific thrust, and appreciate Michael's "human" element. My life has been somewhat complicated - which in turn made ME somewhat complicated. Growing up, i needed complicated answers to my questions because the simple ones were not "cutting it". And so i turned to philosophy, literature, the sciences, etc. for those answers. Eventually i found enough. Coincidentally, it was also at that point that i discovered that all the intellectual knowledge was really a burden, unnecessarily complicating my life even further - so i started unloading it.
Aristotle, Plato, Socrates? Morons. (kidding, "Princess Bride" salute)
Generalisations will always be there, probably for the same reason that there is a "Chinatown" and a "little Italy" in every major city. People want to be among their own "kind". As to dealing with generalisations, there's a neat quote from "The Shootist", something like:
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." J. B. Books
It's not a bad starting point. Although sometimes i do find myself opening my mouth and finding a bit more in there than i expected, heh. No one's perfect.
edit: spelling

Answer:
I had no idea that this was a post about people making generalizations on herre. I was just reading it at first as a discussion in philosophy that I really had no input on to add a reply although I did find it quite illuminating. But, if this really is some continuation of some other thread or an observation about Basenoters habits, then, I will try to reply in the most simplistic and un-verbose way possible. Generally, for anyone to be offended with Bayesian or any kind of a stereotype then one must assume that, although the generalization may have been insensitive, there must have been some truth in the observation. I will not be offended if a random person would assume that I am fanatical about SL’s because I have never smell any fragrance from this house yet (I will when my package arrives though), and, I know if I do like any SL fragrance, it is because I found it to be rather pleasing to the nose and not just because I happen to be a basenoter.
Sorry, felt like those in favor of Layman’s terminology should have an input here as well…not to insult because I am impressed by the intellects on here.

Answer:
Just call it the Serge Lutens Binomial, you either love or hate em. No in between.
TNMA