January 12th, 2019 (Permalink)
Faster Than a Speeding Bullet
Our New Book this month1 reminded me of a, hopefully, interesting example. It occurs in the following passage, taken from a book about the Warren Commission's report on the assassination of President Kennedy, discussing the Zapruder film of that event:
The total elapsed time from the end of [frame] 312 to the end of [frame] 313 has reached the seemingly infinitesimal figure of 1/18th of a second. …[A] bullet traveling approximately 1,979 miles per second, the speed of the fatal bullet fired by Oswald, theoretically could cover almost ninety miles in that 1/18th of a second.2
When I first read this passage, it made no particular impression on me. However, I later returned to the book looking for specific information―which I never found―and re-reading the passage, I was struck by the speed given for the bullet: almost 2,000 miles a second sounds extremely fast. Since there are 3,600 seconds in an hour, this means a speed of over seven million miles an hour! Of course, bullets are fast, but are they that fast? "Magic bullet", indeed!
Unfortunately, when it comes to speed, there is a dearth of landmark numbers to use for comparison. In particular, I had little idea how fast bullets fly. Most of us are familiar with speeds of less that a hundred miles per hour, but beyond that our experience is limited to airplanes. How fast is a commercial jetliner? Surely, faster than a hundred MPH. Faster than 200 MPH? Faster than 500 MPH?3 Faster than a bullet?
Other than the speeds of automobiles, planes, and bullets, there are also natural phenomena whose speeds might provide landmarks, specifically, sound and light. Off hand, I didn't know exactly what the speed of sound is4, though I did know that it is faster than airliners5. Are bullets faster than sound? Of course, bullets aren't faster than light because nothing is6. I also knew that the speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles per second, but there is an enormous gap between the speed of sound and the speed of light: a vast desert devoid of numerical landmarks.
Now, I would have bet that the speed of the fastest bullet ever fired is not even close to the speed of light, and much closer to the speed of sound. However, 2,000 miles per second is only slightly more than 1% of the speed of light. Nonetheless, the more I thought about it, the harder I found it to believe that a bullet flies anywhere near that fast.
The above is a reconstruction of my thought process after I read the passage for the second time, and began to have some skeptical qualms about what I was reading. Given the lack of landmark numbers, I couldn't easily check the passage for plausibility by checking it against landmarks. However, there is one other technique for checking suspicious numbers that I've previously used7: cross-checking.
Cross-checking is only possible when there are two or more numbers to check against each other, but that's the case here: in addition to the alleged speed of the bullet, we also have the claim that it would cover almost 90 miles in 1/18th of a second. In fact, anything going 1,979 miles per second would travel closer to 110 miles in an eighteenth of a second. While this isn't a huge discrepancy, it's an odd one, and gives further reason to doubt the numbers.
At this point, the plausibility check of these numerical claims came to an end with the conclusion that they are implausible, even highly implausible, but not definitely wrong. It may not sound like it, but this is a successful plausibility check, since such checks will seldom establish that the numbers checked are definitely wrong. Plausibility checks are not replacements for actual research, but preliminary steps to see whether additional research is called for. In this case, such research is definitely in order.
So, how fast do bullets fly? Unsurprisingly, this varies considerably depending on the type of gun and ammunition, from a low of around 400 feet per second for black-powder muskets to ten times as fast for modern rifles8.
More specifically, how fast was the bullet fired by Oswald? Approximately 2,000 feet per second9, which suggests that somehow "miles" was substituted for "feet" in the passage in question. Given that there are 5,280 feet in a mile, this means that the claims were off by a factor of over 5,000. So, instead of travelling around a hundred miles in an 18th of a second, the bullet would have travelled only about a hundred feet.
So, what have I learned from this experience and what do I hope that you learn from it? Here are the bullet points:
- When it comes to high speeds, we quickly run out of landmarks by which to judge claims for plausibility. Our experience with speeds is very limited, and anything over around a hundred MPH is just "really fast".
- The author of the book quoted, together with any editors or fact-checkers employed by the publisher, failed to notice that the speed given should be in feet instead of miles, and was off by an absurdly large amount. So, you can't always count on writers or book publishers to catch even egregious errors.
- Given the lack of landmarks, it's easy for even a skeptical person, such as myself, to not notice when numerical information about speeds is in error, even enormous error.
- A New Book for a New Year, 1/5/2019.
- Richard Warren Lewis, The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report (1967), p. 166.
- For the record, the average cruising speed of jet airliners is around 550 MPH. Source: "How Fast Do Commercial Jets Fly? ", Reference, accessed: 1/12/2019.
- To provide another landmark, the speed of sound is around 750 MPH, which would mean that the fatal bullet was travelling at Mach 10,000! Another reason for skepticism. Source: Patricia Barnes-Svarney, editorial director, The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference (1995), pp. 2 & 18.
- The Concorde supersonic transports used to regularly break the sound barrier while flying over the Atlantic ocean between Europe and North America, but they stopped flying fifteen years ago.
- At least, if the theory of relativity is correct.
- Sobriety Check, Part 2, 3/3/2015.
- Patricia Barnes-Svarney & Thomas E. Svarney, The Handy Forensic Science Answer Book (2019), p. 199.
- Colin Evans, A Question of Evidence (2005), p. 149.
January 5th, 2019 (Permalink)
A New Book for a New Year: Is That a Big Number?
Numbers are important: getting them wrong has consequences. Numbers give size and shape to our world in all sorts of ways, and we rely on them to inform the decisions we make. It's easy though, when numbers become too large, to become numbed by sheer scale. This is not a book of mind-boggling number facts, or stupefying statistics. This book is all about finding a path through a wilderness of big numbers that we don't grasp as well as we could.1
This new book by author Andrew C. A. Elliott asks an important question. Having not read the book, I don't know whether Elliott makes the point that, as it stands, that question is unanswerable. Except, I suppose, by: It depends.
No number, taken in isolation, is big or small in itself. I'm not referring to the fact that "big" and "small" are vague concepts, though that's true, too. Rather, I mean that whether a number is big, small, or in-between depends on what it quantifies. Seven may seem like a small number, but not if you're talking about human height in feet. Similarly, a million may seem like a large number, but not if you're dealing with the human population of countries.
Of course, some numbers are bigger than others: a million is definitely a larger number than seven. So, whenever you wonder whether a number is big or small, you should ask: relative to what?
One of the uses of numbers is to compare the sizes of sets of things, but we can't do this well if we don't have a sense of the relative sizes of the numbers. Since most of us have little experience with numbers in the millions, billions, and trillions, we tend to have little sense of how such numbers compare2. In the book, Elliott gives five techniques for putting numbers in context3:
- Landmark Numbers: This phrase seems to refer to what I've called "statistical benchmarks", "benchmark figures", or just "benchmarks"4. These are numbers that can be remembered or easily looked up, and which can be used to put other numbers into perspective. For instance, it's useful to know that the current population of the United States is about a third of a billion people5. I now prefer Elliott's terminology, since a landmark helps us to find our way around a landscape; in the same way, a landmark number can help us navigate the numerical landscape.
- Visualisation: You can see what this must be.
- Divide & Conquer: I'm not sure if this is the technique of dividing a big number in order to reduce it to a smaller number that can be more easily "conquered". For instance, the current U.S. national debt is over $21 trillion6, which is way too big for people to grasp. Is that a lot or what? Of course, it would be a lot of money to have on your credit card, but is it a lot for the country to have on its credit card? How can we tell? If you divide the national debt by the landmark number of the current population5, thus giving the per capita debt, the result is close to $65,000. This is an amount within most people's experience, and thus easier to get a sense of its scale. Is that a big number? Since you can now do so for yourself, I'll let you be the judge. In any case, I like the phrase "divide and conquer" for this technique of cutting a big number down to size so that our understanding can conquer it, but I don't know if that's what Elliott means.
- Rates & Ratios: The example of "divide & conquer" that I've just given produces a ratio. In understanding risk and safety, rates are usually more useful than absolute numbers. For instance, far more people die in the shower than do so in skydiving accidents, but this doesn't mean that showering is more dangerous than skydiving since a lot more people shower than jump out of airplanes. To properly compare the safety of these activities, we need to take into account the fact that more people do one than the other. To do so, divide the number dying in each activity by the number of those engaging in it.
- Log Scales: These are not scales for weighing logs―at least, I don't think they are. Rather, what Elliott is referring to are logarithmic scales, as opposed to the more familiar linear scales. Logarithmic scales are used for measuring such things as earthquakes and sound: both the Richter7 and decibel scales8 are logarithmic. That said, I don't know why Elliott thinks that log scales are so useful that they rank with the previous four methods; I guess that I'll have to read the book to find out.
- Andrew C. A. Elliott, Is That a Big Number? (2018), p. 2.
- Douglas Hofstadter, an early writer on innumeracy, referred to this as "number numbness". See Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern (1985), Chapter 6.
- Elliott, p. 5.
- See, for instance: Sobriety Check, 2/24/2015. I took this terminology from Joel Best's book, Stat-Spotting: A Field Guide to Identifying Dubious Data (2008), pp. 7-9.
- To be more exact, 324 million, according to Wolfram Alpha; accessed: 1/3/2019.
- According to Wolfram Alpha; accessed: 1/3/2019.
- Bryan Bunch & Jenny Tesar, The Penguin Desk Encyclopedia of Science and Mathematics (2000), under "Richter scale".
- Bunch & Tesar, under "decibel".
If youíd like to learn more about manipulating cards in a casino, check out Bestonlinecasinos.com blackjack guide which includes extensive information on how to count cards.
If you want to play casino for free, you should check out freespinsnodeposituk.com for a complete list of casinos.
Video, classic, 3D, real money or bingo slots? At https://readyslotsgo.co.uk/new-slot-sites we list all of them and more. Read how to get your free spins and dive in to the adventures.
Donít waste your time looking for worthy new online casinos, as https://newcasinouk.com/ already did all the hard work for you. Check out top lists with latest casinos on the market and register an account today.
Most online slot players have heard of the gamblers fallacy but we would suggest you simply do your homework before you play in order limit your risk. Sites like SlotsOnlineCanada are the go-to Canadian online slots portal on everything from new slot bonuses, slot game reviews and up-to-date news on the iGaming industry.
You will never be able to dispel the truth and reasoning behind the gamblers fallacy, however if you read these winning insights on pokies you may find that you gain a slight upper hand.
December 31st, 2018 (Permalink)
Instead of watching a boring parade on television, why not ring in the New Year by catching up on your reading? Here are some recent articles that may be of interest to Fallacy Files visitors:
- Tanya Basu, "CNN Lets 'Food Babe' Spout Pseudoscience on Lettuce Outbreak", The Daily Beast, 11/30/2018
One type of fake news originates from fake experts, and this article describes an example. Unfortunately, we can't always rely on news outlets to avoid pseudo-experts.
- Mark Fischetti, "Normal Body Temperature Is Surprisingly Less Than 98.6", Scientific American, 12/1/2018
I've previously quoted John Allen Paulos on the notion that human body temperature is exactly 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit―see the fallacy of Overprecision. It's overly precise in two ways:
- The original normal temperature was given as 37 degrees Celsius, which was then converted into 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. However, this conversion gives the impression that the average is accurate to the tenths of a degree Fahrenheit, whereas the original measurement was in whole degrees Celsius. A less precise but also less misleading conversion would have rounded off to a whole degree Fahrenheit―either 98 or 99.
- Human body temperature varies by a whole degree or more Fahrenheit―as shown in the chart in the above article―from person to person and depending on such factors as the time of day. Giving the normal temperature in terms of tenths of a degree may give the false impression that insignificant differences from the norm indicate an illness, such as fever.
- Sam Levin, "'They don't care': Facebook factchecking in disarray as journalists push to cut ties", The Grauniad, 12/13/2018
If this isn't itself fake news then it's all the more reason why people need to learn how to do fact checks themselves. Don't rely on Facebook, Twitter, or Google to do it for you. This doesn't mean that you should not use Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck, or other institutional factcheckers, but they're not infallible nor completely unbiased.
- Ivan Oransky, "Political scientist asks for correction, gets flip-flop", Retraction Watch, 12/14/2018
A political scientist noticed an error in his paper himself and requested a correction by the journal that published it. Good for him! This is exactly what scholars and scientists are supposed to do. However, the journal itself initially refused to issue a correction on the grounds that the error was too small and petty. This is presumably a holdover from the days when journals only appeared in ink on paper: for such a publication, correcting a trivial error might not be worth the trouble. However, nowadays, even if it's still not worth it to correct the paper version of a journal, there should be no problem with issuing a correction on the internet.
There are two lessons, in the political scientist's own words:
- …[I]t shows how easily errors can reproduce themselves―I never noticed this rather glaring inconsistency….
- It shows that this only works if people speak up about errors they find. Surely, somebody had noticed this particular error before. Itís a fairly well-cited paper and I know it is assigned pretty widely in courses. Maybe people thought the error was inconsequential so they didnít want to bother raising it. But Iím rather embarrassed it happened and I wish one of the people who saw it would have told me earlier. Science is only worthwhile if it is accurate, so better to get it accurate earlier rather than later.
December 25th, 2018 (Permalink)
A Puzzle for Santa Claus
A few days before Christmas, Santa Claus needed to pick up some last-minute toy-making supplies. So, Santa and two of his elves hooked up a reindeer team to his sleigh and took off for the closest Toys R Us1. It was a foggy morning but, unfortunately, Rudolph was too ill to guide the sleigh2.
After picking up the supplies, Santa and the elves climbed back into the sleigh for the return flight to the North Pole. Taking off in the sleigh, which was heavy with supplies, the reindeer team barely made it over the trees. The sleigh itself banged into a tree, dumping Santa and the two elves out into its branches3. Thankfully, they were not seriously hurt in the fall, but the stupid reindeer flew off with the sleigh, leaving Santa and the elves stranded4. So, Santa and his two companions were faced with the long trek on foot back to his North Pole headquarters.
After climbing down from the tree and walking many miles over the frozen tundra5, the three came across a vast crevasse in a glacier6. It was too wide to jump across and stretched off both east and west as far as the eye could see7. If they had to walk around it, they might be too late to finish their preparations for Christmas Eve. How were Santa and the two elves to get back to the North Pole in time? Was there some way to get to the other side?
Fortunately, there was an old, dead tree buried in the ice at the edge of the crevasse. The tree was on the same side as our three heroes, and a big limb stuck out over the canyon. Now, you might think that they could climb the tree, then crawl out on the limb to the other side. However, the branch only reached about halfway across the gap, and it would still have been too far for any of them to jump.
Perhaps they could run out to the end of the branch, jump up and down on it like a diving board, thus getting enough momentum to launch themselves across to the other side. But the limb was barely strong enough to hold Santa's weight as it was, and jumping on it would surely break it, plunging him into the abyss. Each of the elves weighed half what Santa weighed, but could they make it to other side? If they fell short, they would fall into the crevasse. Santa decided that it was too risky.
Luckily, there was a long vine that hung down from the end of the tree branch, and its other end was wrapped around the trunk of the tree. The vine was just long enough to reach the edge of the crevasse on both sides. Santa could easily grasp the end of it, then swing like Tarzan across to the far side, but that would strand the two elves on the near side of the cleft. Without someone to swing on it, the vine would not swing far enough back to the near side so that the elves could grab it. Then, it would end up hanging straight down above the canyon where it would do no one any good.
However, Santa could still swing across the gap, then walk the rest of the way to the North Pole alone. If the sleigh and reindeer were there, he could fly back and pick up the two elves. So, Christmas would be saved.
Still, is there some way that all three of our heroes can use the vine to swing across the crevasse?
- This was, of course, before Toys R Us closed all its stores.
- He had a cold so his nose was brighter red than usual.
- The sleigh lacks seatbelts, unfortunately.
- There's no cellphone reception in the Arctic Circle, so they couldn't call for help.
- What is tundra, anyway, and why is it always frozen?
- Global warming.
- The fog had lifted by that time.
December 14th, 2018 (Permalink)
Rule of Argumentation 1: Appeal to reason!
Reasonís victories are almost never final. It is always surrounded by unreason, which is always more popular. Reason is the stout resistance, the flickering lamp in the darkness, the perpetual underdog, the stoic connoisseur of defeat, the loser that dusts itself off and fights another day.1
This is the first entry on the first rule in the series on rules of argumentation introduced last month2. The rule is simple: treat those you argue with as rational human beings by appealing to their reason. To do otherwise is to treat people as "its", as things, rather than as fellow rational beings. You might wonder what else you might appeal to and the answers are many:
- Faith: What is faith? It's hard to define, but one thing is clear: it's not reason. To appeal to faith is to attempt to get someone to believe something on a non-rational basis.
If you have faith and believe in something because of it, good for you. However, you cannot expect others to share your faith. If they do so, then you don't need to convince them to believe what you believe. However, if they don't, then you will have to appeal to something other than faith to convince them. Historically, when appeals to faith have failed, the back-up has been the appeal to force3. Try reason, instead.
- Authority4: Some appeals to authority, especially appeals to religious authorities, try to get us to believe something because a holy book or a holy man says so. If what the book or the man says appeals to reason in its own right, then all's well; but if it doesn't make sense, then neither does the book or the man.
Clearly, there's an overlap between appeals to faith and appeals to religious authority. Often we are asked to have faith in the authority of a religious text or a prophet, and to believe what the text or prophet says simply because they say it. But both books and men can be, and often are, wrong.
- Emotion5: Feelings such as fear, anger, hatred, even love can be used to bypass or overwhelm reason. We've all had the experience of getting angry, or falling in love, and doing or saying things that we later realize were irrational.
It isn't always wrong to use emotional appeals in argumentation, but to appeal to emotion instead of reason, or to arouse emotions in such a way as to overcome reason, is to treat people as purely emotional, rather than as partly rational, beings.
- Force6: That is, violence or the threat of it. If the way you deal with those who disagree with you is to kill them, assault them, or threaten to do so to gain compliance, then you are not dealing with them as reasonable beings. Instead, you are treating them like non-rational animals that must be whipped to get them to do what you want, or killed to get them out of your way.
This is not to say that it is always logically wrong to use violence in dealing with other people. If others initiate violence or use the threat of it to coerce you, then you may have no alternative but to defend yourself. If others refuse to treat you as a rational being, then you may be justified in responding in kind.
Obviously, there is an overlap between the preceding two types of non-rational appeal, since violence is frightening. Threats of violence are both appeals to force and to fear.
Using reason is risky: there's no guarantee it will work. When you appeal to reason, some will come back at you with appeals to faith, authority, or emotion. When those fail to work, they may appeal to force. Be brave! To quote the philosopher Immanuel Kant: "Sapere aude!"7
Next month: Rule 2.
- Leon Wieseltier, "Reason and the Republic of Opinion", The New Republic, 11/11/2014.
- See: Rules of Argumentation: Introduction, 11/18/2018.
- See below.
- The most general related fallacy is: Appeal to Misleading Authority.
- The most general related fallacy is: Emotional Appeal. There is a named subfallacy for most emotions.
- The related fallacy is: Appeal to Force.
- Translation: "Dare to use your reason!" (Latin). See: Immanuel Kant, "What is Enlightenment?", accessed: 12/13/2018. "Sapere aude!" is sometimes translated as "Dare to know!", which doesn't make much sense and apparently isn't an accurate translation. "Sapere" seems to mean something closer to "think" than to "know". Ehrlich gives "dare to think independently" as a translation. See:
- Eugene Ehrlich, Veni, Vidi, Vici: Conquer Your Enemies, Impress Your Friends with Everyday Latin (2001).
- Thomas Mautner, Editor, A Dictionary of Philosophy (1996).
The new year brings new online casinos 2018 with a lot of new games and bonuses!
Once you master the art of gambling, you might want to check Canada's number one gambling information source casinogames.ca for up to date offers. Casinogames.ca - where the true champions are made!