Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
Has my maths / logic completely failed me
-
19-03-2010 10:50PM#1Sorry for the obscure thread title but I had no idea what to title this one
So the missus and myself have had a fairly heated debate / row at this stage over something that is frankly ridiculous but that said leads to my question.
She mentioned to me about a program she was watching where there were four kids with the same very rare disease. Apparently according to the program / her the chances of four kids in one family having the same very rare disease were a billion to one but that the disease was not hereditary.
So here's where the row kicks in (summarised as briefly as possible) ....
Firstly I said well you would think that the parents would have stopped having kids after the first couple.
She says they had no reason to - the disease isn't hereditary.
I said well there is a strong possibillity that something is amiss with the genes etc.
She sticks to her guns and says no -definitely not a hereditary thing.
I put forward the match winning point that it was more likely that medicine hasn't evolved enough to spot something than a billion to one chance of four kids having the same rare disease.
Repeat until door slammed etc
Anyway my point is how can the parents in the first place not have stopped having kids after child 2 or 3, and more importantly how can anyone think that a billion to one chance is more likely than medicine not having spotted something in the first place.
So is this a classic men v women different view points ? Has logic escaped me ? Are they all mad ?
/ends therapy rant 0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Screw science. You're probably right. Sure, scientists may have studied this for decades, writing papers, doing tests, getting fancy diplomas etc. But i'm sure you're 50/50 guess will pan out.
You sound like my wife
It's about the numbers.
They have done all of the above for cancer and still not cured it.
At one stage the earth was flat.
etc etc etc
My point is that things evolve - and technology / medicine evolves at a massive rate. It's to me more than a 1 in a billion chance that medicine hasn't evolved enough to spot something. :pac:0 -
-
-
I need to know the name of the disease, so I can wiki it and pretend to know enough about it to blow your arguement out of the water.
Eosinophilic enteropathy
The 1 in a billion chance may or may not be accurate
But my point was that in general if four kids from one family all have the same rare disease that medicine says is not hereditary you'd have to wonder has medicine missed something. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
do you want to live on beans until u admit your wrong, the bedroom is gunna be frosty, ur clothes are gunna reak and the stoney silence is gunna be manic, does it really matter whose right, kiss and make up, it will soon be steak and bj day 0
-
-
-
You have to consider the number of opportunities. A 1 in a billion chance of anything in a family is rare but with 6 - 7 billion people in the world it's not that surprising if those odds were beaten.Pageant Messiah wrote: »Eosinophilic enteropathy
The 1 in a billion chance may or may not be accurate But my point was that in general if four kids from one family all have the same rare disease that medicine says is not hereditary you'd have to wonder has medicine missed something.
For example there's about a 1 in 2 billion chance that 4 people in the same family would all randomly be born on say Xmas day, but if you scoured the world there's a fair chance you'd find such a family.
So go and apologize to your missus :P0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »Yep! sometimes it just isn't worth the hastle, especially if you end up on the sofa!
But, sometimes they want you to prove you're right and stand up to them! :rolleyes:
The challange is to work out which tactic is appropiate on the day, it changes depending on the time of the month!
Ah no, pet- I have to stop you here. Whoever told you this is a lying sadist b@stard! :P 0 -
-
Pageant Messiah wrote: »Sorry for the obscure thread title but I had no idea what to title this one
So the missus and myself have had a fairly heated debate / row at this stage over something that is frankly ridiculous but that said leads to my question.
She mentioned to me about a program she was watching where there were four kids with the same very rare disease. Apparently according to the program / her the chances of four kids in one family having the same very rare disease were a billion to one but that the disease was not hereditary.
So here's where the row kicks in (summarised as briefly as possible) ....
Firstly I said well you would think that the parents would have stopped having kids after the first couple.
She says they had no reason to - the disease isn't hereditary.
I said well there is a strong possibillity that something is amiss with the genes etc.
She sticks to her guns and says no -definitely not a hereditary thing.
I put forward the match winning point that it was more likely that medicine hasn't evolved enough to spot something than a billion to one chance of four kids having the same rare disease.
Repeat until door slammed etc
Anyway my point is how can the parents in the first place not have stopped having kids after child 2 or 3, and more importantly how can anyone think that a billion to one chance is more likely than medicine not having spotted something in the first place.
So is this a classic men v women different view points ? Has logic escaped me ? Are they all mad ?
/ends therapy rantPageant Messiah wrote: »You sound like my wife
It's about the numbers.
They have done all of the above for cancer and still not cured it.
At one stage the earth was flat.
etc etc etc
My point is that things evolve - and technology / medicine evolves at a massive rate. It's to me more than a 1 in a billion chance that medicine hasn't evolved enough to spot something. :pac:
Your point is that odds are in favour of this statistic being incorrect. Any statistic like this is obviously highly suspect and many statistics like this have been defeated time and time again.
However that is only one small aspect of the argument. Dna still plays a huge role in society and you would upset people if you were to just argue that it's most likely a junk science.
Many innocent men have been freed from prison thanks to DNA evidence. It has been a very fair and unbiased tool in the right hands. So yes your argument is more than possible and i would welcome someone who questions things like that.Take lead bullet analysis as forensic evidence; this was used by US prosecutors for years to lock up innocent men until the FBI conducted a research and found it was a complete farce
Basically you haven't explained if this disease even effects their life enough for the parents to be extremly cautious about it. I see your point; that after the third child they should have known it was going to happen, but are you sure they discovered it before the second child or third child.
How can we be sure that there is a cure and how much of big deal this is. Can they sue the medical profession and tehreby justify there actions as not their neglience but as medical neglience
If they believed blind the doctors and that it was not hereditory then odds were in their favour.
'Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me' - prosecution by munchausen syndrom excluded0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
Advertisement