29
Philosophy 200 Bayes Theorem

Bayes Theorem. The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

Philosophy 200Bayes Theorem

Page 2: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

Common fallacies of probability: The Gambler’s Fallacy

◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the same or other truly random event.

Page 3: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

Common fallacies of probability: The Gambler’s Fallacy

◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the same or other truly random event.

Ignoring the Law of Large Numbers◦ Is assuming there must be other explanations for very

improbable events.

Page 4: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

a priori probability: ◦ The sort of probability achieved by dividing the

number of desired outcomes vs. the total number of outcomes.

◦ Applies to random events. Statistical probability:

◦ The frequency at which a given event is observed to occur.

◦ Applies to events that are not truly random.

Two Kinds of Probability

Page 5: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

What is the a priori probability (expressed as a percent) of a batter in baseball getting a hit in one at-bat?

An Example

Page 6: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

What is the a priori probability (expressed as a percent) of a batter in baseball getting a hit in one at-bat?◦ 50%

An Example

Page 7: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

What is the a priori probability (expressed as a percent) of a batter in baseball getting a hit in one at-bat?◦ 50%

What is the statistical probability (expressed as a percent) of a major league batter getting a hit in one at-bat?

An Example

Page 8: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

What is the a priori probability (expressed as a percent) of a batter in baseball getting a hit in one at-bat?◦ 50%

What is the statistical probability (expressed as a percent) of a major league batter getting a hit in one at-bat?◦ 25.4%

An Example

Page 9: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

• Wendy has tested positive for colon cancer. • Colon cancer occurs in .3% of the population

(.003 statistical probability)• If a person has colon cancer, there is a 90%

chance that they will test positive (.9 statistical probability of a true positive)

• If a person does not have colon cancer, then there is a 3% chance that they will test positive (3% statistical probability of a false positive)

• Given that Wendy has tested positive, what is the statistical probability that she has colon cancer?

A Case Study in probability:

Page 10: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

The correct answer is 8.3%

Answer:

Page 11: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

The correct answer is 8.3% Most people (including many doctors)

assume that the chances are much better than they really are that Wendy has colon cancer. The reason for this is that people tend to forget that a test must be absurdly specific to give a high probability of having a rare condition.

Answer:

Page 12: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

h = the hypothesise = the evidence for hPr(h) = the statistical probability of hPr(e|h) = the true positive rate of e as

evidence for hPr(e|~h) = the false positive rate of e as

evidence for h

Formal Statement of Bayes’s Theorem:

Pr(h|e) = Pr(h) * Pr(e|h)

[Pr(h) * Pr(e|h)] + [Pr(~h) * Pr(e|~h)]

Page 13: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

h ~h Total

e True Positives

False Positives

Pr(e)*Pop.

~e False Negatives

True Negatives

Pr(~e)*Pop.

Total Pr(h)*Pop. Pr(~h)*Pop.

Pop. = 10^n

The Table Method:

n = sum of decimal places in two most specific probabilities.

Page 14: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

h ~h Total

e = Pr(e|h) * [Pr(h)*Pop.]

= Pr(e|~h) * [Pr(~h)*Pop.]

Total of this row

~e = below - above

= below - above

Total of this row

Total Pr(h)*Pop. Pr(~h)*Pop.

Pop.

The Table Method:

Page 15: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

h ~h Total

e = Pr(e|h) * [Pr(h)*Pop.]

= Pr(e|~h) * [Pr(~h)*Pop.]

Total of this row

~e = below - above

= below - above

Total of this row

Total Pr(h)*Pop. Pr(~h)*Pop.

Pop.

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 16: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

e = Pr(e|h) * [Pr(h)*Pop.]

= Pr(e|~h) * [Pr(~h)*Pop.]

Total of this row

~e = below - above

= below - above

Total of this row

Total Pr(h)*Pop. Pr(~h)*Pop.

Pop.

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 17: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

= Pr(e|h) * [Pr(h)*Pop.]

= Pr(e|~h) * [Pr(~h)*Pop.]

Total of this row

~ test positive

= below - above

= below - above

Total of this row

Total Pr(h)*Pop. Pr(~h)*Pop.

Pop.

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 18: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

= Pr(e|h) * [Pr(h)*Pop.]

= Pr(e|~h) * [Pr(~h)*Pop.]

Total of this row

~ test positive

= below - above

= below - above

Total of this row

Total .003*Pop. .997*Pop. 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 19: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

= Pr(e|h) * [Pr(h)*Pop.]

= Pr(e|~h) * [Pr(~h)*Pop.]

Total of this row

~ test positive

= below - above

= below - above

Total of this row

Total 300 99,700 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 20: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

= True Positive Rate (.9) * 300

= Pr(e|~h) * [Pr(~h)*Pop.]

Total of this row

~ test positive

= below - above

= below - above

Total of this row

Total 300 99,700 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 21: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

270 = Pr(e|~h) * [Pr(~h)*Pop.]

Total of this row

~ test positive

= below - above

= below - above

Total of this row

Total 300 99,700 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 22: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

270 = Pr(e|~h) * [Pr(~h)*Pop.]

Total of this row

~ test positive

30 = below - above

Total of this row

Total 300 99,700 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 23: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

270 = False positive rate (.03) * 99,700

Total of this row

~ test positive

30 = below - above

Total of this row

Total 300 99,700 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 24: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

270 2,991 Total of this row

~ test positive

30 = below - above

Total of this row

Total 300 99,700 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 25: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

270 2,991 Total of this row

~ test positive

30 96,709 Total of this row

Total 300 99,700 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 26: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

270 2,991 3,261

~ test positive

30 96,709 96,739

Total 300 99,700 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 27: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC

Total

tests positive

270 (true positive)

2,991 (false positive)

3,261

~ test positive

30 (false negative)

96,709 (true negative)

96,739

Total 300 99,700 100,000

The Table Method for Wendy:

Page 28: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

has CC ~ have CC Totaltests positive

270 (true positive)

2,991 (false positive)

3,261

What are Wendy’s chances?

•Wendy’s Chances given that she tests positive are the true positives divided by the number of total tests. That is, 270/3261, which is .083 (8.3%).•Those who misestimate that probability forget that colon cancer is rarer than a false positive on a test.

Page 29: Bayes Theorem.  The Gambler’s Fallacy ◦ Is assuming that the odds of a single truly random event are affected in any way by previous iterations of the

Note that testing positive (given the test accuracy specified) raises one’s chances of having the condition from .003(the base rate) to .083.

If we use .083 as the new base rate, those who again test positive then have a 73.1% chance of having the condition.

A third positive test (with .731 as the new base rate) raises the chance of having the condition to 98.8%

How about a second test?