PDA

View Full Version : The Balance of Probabilities


alisoncc
12th Nov 2013, 19:08
Twenty five to thirty years ago, when I had significant involvement in management decision making, a common phrase used was "on the Balance of Probabilities" We would weigh up the probability of some event occurring and invariable agree on a course of action, recognising that our information may be incomplete, but it was the best we could do in the prevailing circumstances.

Rarely seem to hear the expression anymore, and I perceive there to be a far greater degree of polarisation in society. Whether it's the positive or negative effects of immigration, the economy, asylum seekers, climate change, membership of the EU or whatever, everyone seems to have a black or white view, with few seeming to assess their views on the Balance of Probabilities.

I would suggest that increasing polarisation of opinions in society has led to major conflicts in the past. And as such these current polarisations may be the harbinger of future wars. Climate change is a good example. I believe that on the Balance of Probabilities, mankind is having an unprecedented effect on the worlds climate. If your country believes this and your neighbouring country doesn't, and your leaders get miffed over the spillover of pollution, could it lead to conflict?

Is there likely to be a war between Europe and Africa, if Africa keeps dumping all it's excess population on Europe. The same between SE Asia and Australia. Is it likely that the West will go to war with China and India if they fail to reign in their air pollution? Countries likely to be swamped by rising sea levels in the South Pacific are already complaining vigorously about lack of action on climate change. Could this lead to conflict as supporters take sides?

I believe that societies are becoming increasing polarised, and it does not bode well for our collective future. The phrase "the Balance of Probabilities" needs to be rediscovered, and become commonplace again.

TURIN
12th Nov 2013, 19:15
2/1. This turns into a climate change debate.

Evens. Knob gag by post no.5

10/1. I get a thread ban

100/30 Thatcher/Blair/Bush will get blamed for something sooner or later.

4/7 On. Redrum.

Hobo
12th Nov 2013, 19:23
The phrase "the Balance of Probabilities" needs to be rediscovered, and become commonplace again.

It is used all the time in Village Green registration and Rights of Way public inquiries as it is the usual standard of proof in civil cases (as opposed to the higher hurdle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases).

jabird
12th Nov 2013, 20:27
100/30 Thatcher/Blair/Bush will get blamed for something sooner or later.

Post 4, so I'll try not to invoke Godwin's law either then!

Rarely seem to hear the expression anymore, and I perceive there to be a far greater degree of polarisation in society. Whether it's the positive or negative effects of immigration, the economy, asylum seekers, climate change, membership of the EU or whatever, everyone seems to have a black or white view, with few seeming to assess their views on the Balance of Probabilities.

Really? Think we've always gone for the tabloid headline approach, just more ways of doing it now.

If your country believes this and your neighbouring country doesn't, and your leaders get miffed over the spillover of pollution, could it lead to conflict?

Yes - of diplomatic kind. Not much sense in nuking your neighbour over an air pollution dispute if you are downwind that day!

Countries likely to be swamped by rising sea levels in the South Pacific are already complaining vigorously about lack of action on climate change.

Yet they are also the ones most dependent on long distance transport for goods and people. Always a tricky one that!


Is there likely to be a war between Europe and Africa, if Africa keeps dumping all it's excess population on Europe.

But that would create more refugees!

Best way to reduce immigration flows is to reduce need for immigration in first place by raising living standards - and this is already happening.

Wars over resources have already taken place plenty of times, and that resource may increasingly be water rather than just oil, or perhaps just large tracts of desert for solar installations.

But the "balance of probalities" to me says war is inherently a negative ROI, we've moved on from the mass destruction of the 20th Century, but 24 hour news makes it appear otherwise.

The real battles are the commercial / intellectual / electronic ones.

Absolutely Fabulous
13th Nov 2013, 02:34
That's because the younger generation know everything :p

mikedreamer787
13th Nov 2013, 03:16
Countries likely to be swamped by rising sea levels in the South Pacific are already complaining vigorously about lack of action on climate change.

In other words "We want more of your money handed out to us free!"

That's what so-called "Foreign Aid" is all about.

probes
13th Nov 2013, 05:04
yep, alisoncc, but the phrase assumes one is interested in the result or outcome? Nowadays it's mostly about people interested in personal attention or publicity for some weird reason or another.

arcniz
13th Nov 2013, 11:03
I would suggest that increasing polarization of opinions in society has led to major conflicts in the past. And as such these current polarizations may be the harbinger of future wars. Climate change is a good example. I believe that on the Balance of Probabilities, mankind is having an unprecedented effect on the worlds climate.

A weakness in your premise with reference to political surfing of Global Warming for managing social and economic practices is the hard factual reality that the Balance of the Probabilities does not necessarily support the premises of politicized GW.

The Bollywood version of GW that liberal minds see as stairs to cash and power is, even when taken most seriously, an unprecedented event. No set of probabilities available to political or practical science can demonstrate much joinder between political posturing and groveling as proposed and sound thermal management of the near-earth environment. Resistance to plans and proposals that respond directly to the alleged phenomena rather than via political self-pleasuring are roundly ignored by the GW proponents of immediate legislation in all directions that merely serve their political ends and interests.

Cold analysis shows near zero probability that most dire GW forecasts are correct in their assumptions, nor much likely efficacy of proposed theories for cures, and certainly not rational balance in blanket rejection of proposed environment change solutions that do anything other than conveniently supporting ongoing populist-socialist political movements and agendas.

Your proposed Balance of Probabilities is no balance at all, merely a ramp to a new era of global fad and ritual favoring certain self-serving sorts of political whim.


:):):)

gingernut
14th Nov 2013, 19:43
In my job, which is full of uncertainty, and increasingly scrutinised by "no win, no fee" lawyers, (which isn't always a bad thing), I often find myself writing.... "on the balance of things."

I guess it's meant to say that "I considered the options," with limited information, which I'm hoping, displays a mature thought process should the sh*t hit the fan.

Not sure what the judge would say. :)

ExSp33db1rd
14th Nov 2013, 20:20
TURIN .........

5/1 - someone will say it's "organic", so that's alright.

alisoncc
14th Nov 2013, 22:44
Your proposed Balance of Probabilities is no balance at all, merely a ramp to a new era of global fad and ritual favoring certain self-serving sorts of political whim.The ability to measure the pH of a liquid isn't rocket science. If the BBC are running articles like "Emissions of CO2 driving rapid oceans 'acid trip'", at BBC News - Emissions of CO2 driving rapid oceans 'acid trip' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24904143)

then what is there to disbelieve? Of course one must allow for all the lefties at the Beeb who make up stuff like this. :}

ExRAFRadar
15th Nov 2013, 05:52
2/1. This turns into a climate change debate.

Evens. Knob gag by post no.5

10/1. I get a thread ban

100/30 Thatcher/Blair/Bush will get blamed for something sooner or later.

4/7 On. Redrum.

Superb :D

But it was Thatchers fault. All of it. ;)