The 70 Online Databases that Define Our Planet
I didn’t realize so much data is available on the internet…wow. From MIT’s Technology Review, December 3, 2010:
The 70 Online Databases that Define Our Planet
If you want to simulate the Earth, you’ll need data on the climate, health, finance, economics, traffic and lots more. Here’s where to find it.
Why we think rituals can influence results
From Michael Shermer’s article I already learned that people see patterns even when there is none. The article below points out that this type of behaviour was also observed in pigeons! From BBC News Magazine, 14 September 2011:
Go Figure: Why we think rituals can influence results
By Michael Blastland
We all have lucky rituals or charms but why do we see meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data, asks Michael Blastland.
What Health Stats Really Mean
Statistical illiteracy becomes a big problem when people make health decisions. So why isn’t statistics taught to everyone early in school? And more importantly, why isn’t it a requirement for doctors?
From Scientific American Mind, April 8, 2009:
Knowing Your Chances: What Health Stats Really Mean
Learn how to put aside unjustified fears and hopes and how to weigh your real risk of illness–or likelihood of recovery
What should you really fear?
Our “anecdotal” brain sucks up all the sensational news the media (vying for higher ad revenues) can muster. This results in some skewed gut feelings of what we should be afraid of.
Wired’s book review of Dan Gardner’s The Science of Fear includes a quiz that is worth taking. For example,
What was the total death toll of the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
- 3,000
- 4,595
- 20,000
The End of Theory?
“All models are wrong, but some are useful” — I love that quote. For me it highlights the raison d’etre of science: to predict and therefore to increase control. I don’t agree with the article that theories and models will become obsolete, but it is time to add some new tools to the set of predicting tools we already have. And use the most useful ones.
———————————————–
WIRED MAGAZINE: 16.07
The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete
One problem with models
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9645336
The article highlights a typical problem with statistical models that use many “runs” to come up with most likely results — that is, how to vary the parameters for each “run”. These kind of models are used in many places, for example in determining whether someone’s retirement fund invested in the stock markets will be sufficient given the market volatilities.
In the example cited in the article, the parameters were varied on a linear basis. From my perspective, that’s just sloppy: each parameter should have its own statistical distribution (what is its most common value? how far up/down the scale does it vary? etc.) and the values that go into each “run” should be determined based on that distribution. So for parameters that are the same except in the way that they are expressed, the distribution curve would look the same and there would be no problem.
The problem, which the article does not sufficiently stress, is that a lot of the parameters may be related in a way that is much more complex, and what’s even more important, in a way we may not know. In the first instance, making the model more complex (e.g. using a small model to determine the parameters that go into the main model) would lessen the problem. But what we do not know can severely affect the outcome.
About
Although it started out as a means of practising expressing myself, this blog is turning out to be more of a compendium of interesting information I come across. One of these days I’ll have to actually write something as opposed to cut and paste. 
