No, Mickelson does not have to "defy the odds"

By -
Here: "None of this means Mickelson is doomed; it only means that he'll have to defy the odds."

This statement reflects the modern tendency to assign the mathematical formulas of probability the same role as "Fate" played in the classical worldview, or witchcraft does for the Zande.

There are no "odds" working against Mickelson simply because the 36-hole leader at Royal Troon has only won The Open two out of eight times. Mickelson is only competing with the other golfers on the course with him: all he has to do is to keep scoring better than they do, and he will win. He does not, besides beating them, also have to defeat some divine being called "the odds." If eight out of the previous eight 36-hole leaders had gone on to win, that would not make Mickelson's task one bit easier, and if zero out of eight had won, it would not make his task one bit harder. (All of this, of course, is barring the possibility that Mickelson has adopted the same mystical belief in the power of "the odds" that this sportswriter has: that might present some psychological barrier to Mickelson winning, but it would be that belief, and not "the odds" themselves, that stood in his way.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more