If you think that the doctor is much more likely to tell you you have strep when you do have strep than when you don’t, then you can use the information to update your probability estimate that you do have strep. This isn’t me being caught up in anything. This is standard probability theory. This is not a bizarre or strange idea.
If a doctor tells you you have strep, and you believe he’s more likely to tell you you have strep if you do have strep than if you don’t, and you don’t treat it as evidence, you’re making an explicit error.
If, on the other hand, you don’t believe he’s more likely to tell you you have strep if you do have strep than if you don’t, then your error was in visiting the doctor in the first place.
That could mean many things, could you clarify that?
For example; that could mean that the net total of all medical decisions made by doctors are less than fifty percent correct, which I find to be conceivable.
Or that could mean that for any given person no matter what they’re going to see the doctor for, they can expect his word to at the very least be less than fifty percent correct. But, when you consider how some decisions are much easier than others, you would have to make the average doctor about 99% incorrect with the difficult ones in order to make him just under 50% correct with the easier ones. Then to further factor in the quality of the doctor, the less qualified doctor would have to have staggering low percentage of correct decisions to allow room for the most skilled doctors to be anywhere close to the 50% in their decisions.
But, the above is ridiculous, obviously your observations couldn’t be correct if you meant that. Try seeing many different doctors for a general exam which would include them looking down your throat, when you don’t have a soar throat, and see how many times they misdiagnose your throat. Then do the reverse for an actual sore throat or something equally or more easy to detect like an open wound, without telling them what the problem is, and see how many times they misdiagnose you.
A random number generator gives you only what you asked for. It has no intention. It is not trying to fool you in any way, for good purpose or bad. It does exactly and only what it says (assuming Microsoft didn’t design it).
The same cannot be said of doctors who are in the illness business.
Haha.
Watch the video on Royal Raymond Rife.
The AMA feted him for curing cancer and then
did everything they could to impede him.
They suddenly realized that a huge portion of why they
are employed would go away.
I, myself, have found that a pure vegan diet has
cured everything that was ever wrong with me in
about 15 years.
Are you serious? Obviously people can make more use of the most corrupt types of doctors for medical purposes than they can by randomly making medical decisions without any help. In fact, anyone of any intelligence would do better with their own judgment when it comes to medical issues than they would making random decisions.
If you want to talk about corruption in the medical field you probably won’t find me arguing with you, but this is beyond words.
People have an agenda, and the medical industry is made of people.
Profit off of (helping with dealing with) sickness is a very dubious kind of stimulus.
Without extreme control this is necessarily going to lead to the most involved kind of corruption thinkable to man.
It’s not like there is anything preventing that from happening.
The medical world is sick.
…but wait, where am I? Why am I saying this?
I like the idea that dark matter is the inability of particles to enter into an extremely low affectance zone.
This isn’t about the medical industry, for me anyway, this is about a horrid way of discussing statistical probability. I would have thought I know less about the OP topic itself than anyone who is not yet to post, but I still know that if one doesn’t understand the difference between unpredictability and multiple factors for determining probability then he is hopeless at discussing the interactions of particles.
So when they speak of physical dark matter, they can see it?
You can “see” the end effect of something and deduce its presence without ever physically seeing it (else you wouldn’t be able to see anything at all).
They, perhaps, are the greatest of poets, and so like all great poets they see much. Then that they, the physicists, can have such a profound impact on things when many otherwise artless people use their poetic, non-analytic philosophy as the bases for their creations should not be surprising for anyone not entirely artless.
No, for myself and myself alone, I see only the catalysts and posit their effects.
I like this idea as well. And what you say about the medical industry is quite correct. “good” people (most/some of the time) forced into situations and organizations of very detrimental-harmful incentives, implicit or explicit.
To dark matter… at this point I am thinking about it as the fact that ALL space-time is composed of substance, even minimally so. Even a photon, “minimal EM as a particle” is very much larger than the true minimum threshold for existence. “Masslessness” is relative to what we can measure as “having mass at all”, and in reality any thing/point which we speak of must have “mass”, even if only 0.0000001% of what we can register.
Add up enough of those tiny-masses (affectance) and you get real, measurable mass-effects. Scientists are looking for dark matter as if it is just “hanging out there” in certain places and not others, they are trying to detect it by measuring bending in light from distant stars; but what they must not realize is that reality ITSELF is “dark matter”. On the scale of a galaxy, that 0.0000001% becomes very significant to the total “gravity” of such huge regions. And now thanks to RM:AO we know what “gravity” actually is, and it explains exactly the galaxy rotation curve problem along with explaining exactly what “dark matter” is.