There was an editorial in the Indian Express on the 'hysteria' surrounding Large Hadron Collider Experiment. There was a fear propogated by a group of scientists that the accelerating streams of protons would cause a quasar to form, which on expansion could cause the end of the world. Well, the world did not come to an end. In any case, it would take about a year or so before the proton actually accelerates fully. It's going to take sometime before the naysers are proved wrong. Several scientists have allayed the fears, saying that this experiment is too small to swallow up the world. In science we trust, the sky will not fall.
The problem though was, the editorial misrepresented probabilities. Actually, the experiment was conducted because, the probability that the world would come to an end was zero. Even if there was a low probability that the world would end, the experiment wouldn't have been conducted. The editorial traversed the realms of nuclear physics first, and then probability, followed by human psychology.
It went on to point out a flaw in human thinking! It said "...a deeper problem in our society: overestimating the danger of small probability events." It was at this point i started thinking: "How can we overestimate the end of the world, even if there is a 0.0000001 percent chance?" The author made a gross mistake. He was either unaware of, or had completely forgotten what wieghted probabilty was. This made man appear stunted in his thinking, when he was actually using an intellectual gift, of instinctive weighting. It's something we always do when we prioritze. Infact, we get into problems often by underestimating events of low probabilty. There is a very small chance that some woman has AIDS, but if she does her clients are doomed!
What's wrong with fearing events of low probability? Was the attack on twin towers an event of high, or atleast reasonable probability? Did anyone ever think of it even in their dreams. Hell no! Was the bombing of Pearl Harbour an event of high probabilty? All great inventions in the world were events of low probability. High probability events are always gaurded against. It's only the low probability events that catches you out of the blue, and shapes history. It is almost always true that low porbability events are heavily weighted. The way low probability events shape the course of the world is the subject of a very famous book by Nassim Taleb titled 'The Black Swan'. The point is, probabilities might be low, but if those events do occur, they change the way the world works.
It's true that road accidents kill more people than terrorist attacks in the world. Terrorist attacks indeed are events of low probability. The editorial said, we were therefore stupid in spending more money on terrorism than on making roads safer. Here again, such a statement wouldn't have been made if the author had the slightest idea what sample spaces meant. In Surat, chances are that you can die of a road accident than a terrorist attack. Can you say the same thing for the Kashmir valley, or Afghanistan? Road accidents have a vastly huge sample space. Terrorists have specific targets, hence a smaller sample space. More accident deaths therefore don't mean terrorism is a smaller danger, it only means that the denominators are different.
In today's complex world, where there is an increasing need of specialization in every field. This applies to journalism as well. It is surprising why there is a degree called B.A. Journalism, where people learn nothing about specific domains. This kind of writng shallow and devoid of any science, is what we can expect to see if we still churn out journalists, who lack domain knowledge. For instance, the Wall Street Journal has an article which intends to do the same thing which this editorial did. The difference though is that, it was written by Dr. Michio Kaku, a popular theoritical physicist in the United States and was much more scientific in its treatment of the subject matter. Probably because journalists strongly gaurd our newspapers, we never get to know scientists till they get a Bharat Ratna. It's better writing is left to subject matter experts, even if it means editorials would cease
The problem though was, the editorial misrepresented probabilities. Actually, the experiment was conducted because, the probability that the world would come to an end was zero. Even if there was a low probability that the world would end, the experiment wouldn't have been conducted. The editorial traversed the realms of nuclear physics first, and then probability, followed by human psychology.
It went on to point out a flaw in human thinking! It said "...a deeper problem in our society: overestimating the danger of small probability events." It was at this point i started thinking: "How can we overestimate the end of the world, even if there is a 0.0000001 percent chance?" The author made a gross mistake. He was either unaware of, or had completely forgotten what wieghted probabilty was. This made man appear stunted in his thinking, when he was actually using an intellectual gift, of instinctive weighting. It's something we always do when we prioritze. Infact, we get into problems often by underestimating events of low probabilty. There is a very small chance that some woman has AIDS, but if she does her clients are doomed!
What's wrong with fearing events of low probability? Was the attack on twin towers an event of high, or atleast reasonable probability? Did anyone ever think of it even in their dreams. Hell no! Was the bombing of Pearl Harbour an event of high probabilty? All great inventions in the world were events of low probability. High probability events are always gaurded against. It's only the low probability events that catches you out of the blue, and shapes history. It is almost always true that low porbability events are heavily weighted. The way low probability events shape the course of the world is the subject of a very famous book by Nassim Taleb titled 'The Black Swan'. The point is, probabilities might be low, but if those events do occur, they change the way the world works.
It's true that road accidents kill more people than terrorist attacks in the world. Terrorist attacks indeed are events of low probability. The editorial said, we were therefore stupid in spending more money on terrorism than on making roads safer. Here again, such a statement wouldn't have been made if the author had the slightest idea what sample spaces meant. In Surat, chances are that you can die of a road accident than a terrorist attack. Can you say the same thing for the Kashmir valley, or Afghanistan? Road accidents have a vastly huge sample space. Terrorists have specific targets, hence a smaller sample space. More accident deaths therefore don't mean terrorism is a smaller danger, it only means that the denominators are different.
In today's complex world, where there is an increasing need of specialization in every field. This applies to journalism as well. It is surprising why there is a degree called B.A. Journalism, where people learn nothing about specific domains. This kind of writng shallow and devoid of any science, is what we can expect to see if we still churn out journalists, who lack domain knowledge. For instance, the Wall Street Journal has an article which intends to do the same thing which this editorial did. The difference though is that, it was written by Dr. Michio Kaku, a popular theoritical physicist in the United States and was much more scientific in its treatment of the subject matter. Probably because journalists strongly gaurd our newspapers, we never get to know scientists till they get a Bharat Ratna. It's better writing is left to subject matter experts, even if it means editorials would cease
