Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway
@Essence: I would be interested to know what her history lesson covered regarding WWII ...........I can only imagine her indoctrination on "climate change".
|
I don;t know - she is a bit dipsy, to be honest, what she knows and what she was taught are two different things.
On climate change, I understand people's scepticism, but also I know people whose job is long term climate modelling.
I am also very heavily involved in risk analysis.
So my take on climate change is simple - if there is a chance (even 1%) that there is global warming caused by our actions, and if globa warming caused disasterous effects, then we shoudl modify our actions.
You don;t need to believe 100% (or even 50% or 25%) in global warming to take it very seriously.
It's all about risk analysis, and the finance world doesn't seem to do that very well.
Don;t want to derail education discussion - but maybe it is related, you can;t understand climate change issues without understanding maths, probabilities and risk analysis.
We all know examples of how uneducated people misuse probabilities. Actually, even very highly educated people misuse probabilities.
Let me tell you a little story, which demonstrates difference between education and facts.
A woman is in court, accused of murder of her two baby children. He defence is that they both died of sudden death syndrome. The 'expert' witness, a medical doctor, pronounces that the chance of two children in the same family dieing of this cause is minute. Is the doctor right?
In this case, she was found guilty, but on appeal the case was dismissed.
But how do you educate a jury to argue with the 'facts'.
[in simpe terms, the facts presented were that the chance of a single baby was 1/n, so the chance of the woman having two deaths by sudden death syndrome was 1/(n*n). Complete misapplication of the rules of probability].
How do you train people to think, rather than learn facts?