How we determine facts.

[Jenny A]

Isn't this a classic Monty Hall problem? I'm not smart enough to figure that out.

Change the white and black marbles with a goat and a car.

Nope, it isn't. Not even related.

[Mudhammam]

Now pretend the white marbles represent each religious claim found in every "holy" text and "divine" experience that you reject as bullshit.

But your non-white one MUST be there, you just KNOW it!

[JuliaL]

<snip>
For example, suppose the bag has 3 marbles in it. W stands for a white marble. B stands for a non-white(black) marble. If 3 marbles are in the bag the possible starting conditions are:
WWW (3 white marbles)
WWB (2 white marbles and black marble)
WBB (1 white marbles and 2 black marbles)
BBB (3 black marbles)

Before we start drawing marbles the probability that all the marbles are white is .25. Now suppose we draw a white marble. Now only two marbles are left in the bag and we've eliminated one possible initial starting condition. The remaining possible starting conditions are:
WWW
WWB
WBB.

Hang on a minute.
I'm going either to be pedantic or dim.....or dimly pedantic.
But you have to specify something about the initial conditions for the marbles, for example, that the probability of any single marble of being white is 0.5 and black is the other 0.5.

Otherwise, in a universe with only white marbles possible starting conditions are:
WWW (3 white marbles) probability 1.0
WWB (2 white marbles and black marble) probability 0.0
WBB (1 white marbles and 2 black marbles) probability 0.0
BBB (3 black marbles) probability 0.0
and the probability of drawing a white marble on your first draw is 1.0.

and you've not gained any information with which to infer what the other possibilities are.

I had problems with the car and the goat too. Until I reasoned it out thusly.
Three doors, one car, two goats:
On the initial pick, you had a 33% chance of picking the car, 66% chance of the goat.
So Monty showed you a goat, then if you had picked a goat (66% chance) and switched you got the car. If you had picked the car (33% chance) and you switched you got the goat. So you switched your 66% chance of getting the goat for a 66% chance of getting the car.
I mnemonicked this with the phrase, "if you won and you switched, you lost and if you lost and you switched, you won."

[Jenny A]

<snip>
For example, suppose the bag has 3 marbles in it. W stands for a white marble. B stands for a non-white(black) marble. If 3 marbles are in the bag the possible starting conditions are:
WWW (3 white marbles)
WWB (2 white marbles and black marble)
WBB (1 white marbles and 2 black marbles)
BBB (3 black marbles)

Before we start drawing marbles the probability that all the marbles are white is .25. Now suppose we draw a white marble. Now only two marbles are left in the bag and we've eliminated one possible initial starting condition. The remaining possible starting conditions are:
WWW
WWB
WBB.

Hang on a minute.
I'm going either to be pedantic or dim.....or dimly pedantic.
But you have to specify something about the initial conditions for the marbles, for example, that the probability of any single marble of being white is 0.5 and black is the other 0.5.

No, it's an attempt to explain that we never know anything for sure unless we've seen it. It's disingenuous though because it suggests we make our scientific conclusions about the world based upon samples sizes as small as one or two. But you're quite right that assuming from the get go the the chances of black or white is 50/50 is unwarranted.

[Heywood]

Now pretend the white marbles represent each religious claim found in every "holy" text and "divine" experience that you reject as bullshit.

But your non-white one MUST be there, you just KNOW it!

Its funny because at when I introduced this to the morons at TTA, I did so as a reasons why you should not believe in miracles(I wanted to frame it in a way that I thought would appeal to atheists). The idiots there rejected it.

I argued that each time you investigate a purported miracle and find it to be a sham miracle and not a genuine one, it increases the probability that all purported miracles are shame miracles.

[Mudhammam]

Its funny because at when I introduced this to the morons at TTA, I did so as a reasons why you should not believe in miracles(I wanted to frame it in a way that I thought would appeal to atheists). The idiots there rejected it.

I argued that each time you investigate a purported miracle and find it to be a sham miracle and not a genuine one, it increases the probability that all purported miracles are shame miracles.

And you concluded that...?

[Heywood]

Hang on a minute.
I'm going either to be pedantic or dim.....or dimly pedantic.
But you have to specify something about the initial conditions for the marbles, for example, that the probability of any single marble of being white is 0.5 and black is the other 0.5.

No, it's an attempt to explain that we never know anything for sure unless we've seen it. It's disingenuous though because it suggests we make our scientific conclusions about the world based upon samples sizes as small as one or two. But you're quite right that assuming from the get go the the chances of black or white is 50/50 is unwarranted.

When I wrote out the example, I didn't spell out every assumption....like the overall distribution of colored marbles in the universe. So sure...if black marbles don't exist in the universe...the probability of drawing one from the bag is 0 and it is always going to be 0.

Now regarding scientific conclusions....we begin to draw conclusions the moment we observe and reflect and we do begin to make conclusions after just one observation. The number of observations just increases our confidence in those conclusions.

[The Grand Nudger]

When I wrote out the example, I didn't spell out every assumption....like the overall distribution of colored marbles in the universe. So sure...if black marbles don't exist in the universe...the probability of drawing one from the bag is 0 and it is always going to be 0.

But you won't know that. With no explicit statement about the totality of marbles in the bag (the number, the possible colors) -you can't even assign a probability.

Now regarding scientific conclusions....we begin to draw conclusions the moment we observe and reflect and we do begin to make conclusions after just one observation. The number of observations just increases our confidence in those conclusions.

Yeah...that's actually not how scientific conclusions are arrived at -at all.

[Heywood]

Its funny because at when I introduced this to the morons at TTA, I did so as a reasons why you should not believe in miracles(I wanted to frame it in a way that I thought would appeal to atheists). The idiots there rejected it.

I argued that each time you investigate a purported miracle and find it to be a sham miracle and not a genuine one, it increases the probability that all purported miracles are shame miracles.

And you concluded that...?

I concluded that most of the members who participated in that TTA thread were idiots.

---

When I wrote out the example, I didn't spell out every assumption....like the overall distribution of colored marbles in the universe. So sure...if black marbles don't exist in the universe...the probability of drawing one from the bag is 0 and it is always going to be 0.

But you won't know that. With no explicit statement about the totality of marbles in the bag (the number, the possible colors) -you can't even assign a probability.

Sure I can. I assign the probability to be X. I then make conclusions about X as each marble is drawn from the bag. With each draw X moves closer to 1 or to 0.

I don't know what the probability is that every evolutionary system requires an intellect. So I assign it probability X. Each time I see something and say to myself, "Hey...that is an evolutionary system" X might move to 0 or closer to 1. It moves to 0 if I find that the evolutionary system came into existence without the need of an intellect. It moves closer to 1 if I find that the evolutionary system needs an intellect.

---

Yeah...that's actually not how scientific conclusions are arrived at -at all.

yes it is

*cue up the monty python argument by contradiction skit*

[100 Years of Solitude]

To OP: In every scientific experience you have to define the circumstances in which occurs = first mistake you've made right at the start when you didn't clarify whether or not both ballss had the same probability of being picked.
Everything that follows is already not valid.

That's how science works, if the scientific method is not followed correctly you can't conclude anything.