In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...nt/cell-phone/
cell-phone-statistics.html
"1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by
texting and driving."

Jeff, we know each other for years over the net, and I know you to be a
very data-based person.

Here's the paradox.

1. You and I believe that distracted driving can easily cause accidents.
2. Cellphone ownership has gone explosively up in the USA.
3. But, accidents have not.

That's the paradox.

Not if the vast majority of cell phoen users have sense enough not to
text and drive. Then the remainder will have accidents some of the
time while texting and accident rates will go up a little because of
that. But the difference between this and dui accidents versus other
accidents is that many accidents are just accidents and harder to
prevent. But people can decide in advance not to drink and drive, or
text and drive, or talk on the phone and drive, so those acts merit
extra attention, extra prevention, and extra punishment, whether they
cause an accident or not. .

A. We can *assume* that driving while using cellphones has gone up.
B. We can also *assume* that distracted driving is dangerous.
C. Unfortunately, distracted driving statistics are atrociously
inaccurate.

How do you know C? And what difference does it make. Sometimes we
must act based on assumptions.

Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
*extremely reliable*.

Why is that a paradox?

So, we really have two extremely reliable components of the paradox.
a. Cellphone ownership has been going explosively up in the USA,
b. All the while *accidents* have been going down.

I'm not sure that's true. Deaths were about 50,000 a year for a long
time, but the institution of seat belts, padded dash, dual brakes,
crumple zones, shoulder harnesses, airbags, lower speed limit** and some
things I forget lowered the number to 35,000 a year even as the number
of people driving increased with the increase in population and the
number of miles increased at least that much.

What are the fatalities now? You're concerned about accidents, but
accidents increase and decrrease as fatalities do, even if the
correlation is not 1. And fatalities are more important than
accidents, especially 100 dolllar dents,

**which I'm pretty much opposed to, especially since it was done by the
feds, the reason was the oil crisis, and the shortage of oil is over.

Hence, the paradox.
Where are all the accidents?

See my first paragraph above.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

How do you know C? And what difference does it make. Sometimes we
must act based on assumptions.

Do you see that if we actually *believe* the cellphone driving
statistics, that only makes the paradox (far) *WORSE* (not better!)?

Let's say we believe that cellphone use is distracting.
Let's say we believe distracted driving is dangerous.
Let's even say it's as dangerous as driving drunkly.

If that's the case, then there should be MORE accidents, not fewer
accidents, year over year, as cellphone ownership rose steadily.

But, we see the exact opposite.
Total accident figures (which are reliable numbers) are going down.

So, whether or not we believe that cellphone use while driving causes
accidents, the paradox remains.

It's just MORE of a paradox if we believe (as I do) that cellphone use
*causes* accidents.

The reason is that the accidents simply don't exist.
Hence the paradox.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
*extremely reliable*.

Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Do you remember the Fermi Paradox?
As I recall, a bunch of rocket scientists were making the assumption
before lunch that aliens must exist, when, all of a sudden, Fermi, over
lunch, realized belatedly that if they do exist, then there must be some
"signal" (or evidence) from them.

That evidence didn't exist.
Hence the paradox.

It's the same concept here.

1. We all assume cellphone use while driving is distracting.
2. We then assume that distracted driving causes accidents.
3. But, the belated realization is that there is no evidence supporting
this assumption in the total accident statistics (which are reliable).

Even worse, if we believe the studies and the (clearly flawed) statistics
on cellphone use while driving, that just makes the paradox WORSE!

If cellphone use is so distractingly dangerous, why isn't it *causing*
more accidents?

That's the paradox.

ceg writes:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
*extremely reliable*.

Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Very funny.

The Fermi Paradox is about "absence of evidence for extraterrestrial
intelligence".

--
Dan Espen

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:12:35 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

The Fermi Paradox is about "absence of evidence for extraterrestrial
intelligence".

This "cellphone paradox" is similar in that there seems to be
an absence of evidence of actual accident rates going up.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:24:42 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:
Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Think again. The Fermi Paradox is better stated as:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Much of this has its basis in theology where wrestling over the
existence of God is an international sport. A more simplistic version
is that you can't prove anything with nothing as evidence.

The corollary also doesn't work whe
"Quantity of evidence is not evidence of quantity".
In other words, just because you have a large pile of numbers, doesn't
mean you can prove a large number of things.

The problem is that the "Fermi Paradox" is the logic sucks.

"The great Enrico Fermi proposed the following paradox. Given
the size of the universe and evidence of intelligent life on
Earth making it non-zero probability for intelligent life
elsewhere, how come have we not been visited by aliens? Where
is everybody?, he asked."

No matter how minute the probability of such life, the size
should bring the probability to 1. (In fact we should have
been visited a high number of times: see the Kolmogorov and
Borel zero-one laws.)

So, what's missing? Well, it's time or rather how many solar
revolutions a civilization can exist without destroying itself or
having some cosmic catastrophe do it for them. The details are worked
out in the Drake Equation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
which computes the probability of two civilizations coming into
contact. If you happen to be a pessimist, and use pessimistic
probabilities, the probability might as well be zero. Inflating the
statistical population to astronomical proportions does nothing to
change the probabilities and certainly will not result in a 100%
chance of an alien encounter.




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:52:04 -0700, Jeff
Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:24:42 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:
Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Think again. The Fermi Paradox is better stated as:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Much of this has its basis in theology where wrestling over the
existence of God is an international sport. A more simplistic version
is that you can't prove anything with nothing as evidence.

The corollary also doesn't work whe
"Quantity of evidence is not evidence of quantity".
In other words, just because you have a large pile of numbers, doesn't
mean you can prove a large number of things.

The problem is that the "Fermi Paradox" is the logic sucks.

"The great Enrico Fermi proposed the following paradox. Given
the size of the universe and evidence of intelligent life on
Earth making it non-zero probability for intelligent life
elsewhere, how come have we not been visited by aliens? Where
is everybody?, he asked."

No matter how minute the probability of such life, the size
should bring the probability to 1. (In fact we should have

The thing is that probabilty on a yes or no question is only valuable
for betting parlors and insurance brokers, which are really the same
thing. One may thing the probability is very high, because there are
so many places life could be, but if there is no life beyond the earth,
it doesn't matter what the probability WAS.

It is partly tied up with theology, iiuc, in that some believers in God
want to believe that this earth is his only creation. I don't know why
they would think that either.

Another problem, IMO, is that scientists, as reported by the news, seem
to think life could only be water based, and seem to discount places
without water. . I know water has advantages, but it's not the only
possibility.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if there were no life anywhere else.
There are cerrtainly lots of places beyond earth with no life, so why
not more.

OTOH, if there is life, I see no special reason they would have a radio
transmitter. Until I got a cell phone, I didn't have one.


been visited a high number of times: see the Kolmogorov and
Borel zero-one laws.)

So, what's missing? Well, it's time or rather how many solar
revolutions a civilization can exist without destroying itself or
having some cosmic catastrophe do it for them. The details are worked
out in the Drake Equation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
which computes the probability of two civilizations coming into
contact. If you happen to be a pessimist, and use pessimistic
probabilities, the probability might as well be zero. Inflating the
statistical population to astronomical proportions does nothing to
change the probabilities and certainly will not result in a 100%
chance of an alien encounter.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:52:04 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Think again. The Fermi Paradox is better stated as:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I don't disagree.

The absence of evidence of cellphone use causing accidents is
not evidence of absence.

I don't disagree.

Yet, it's still a paradox because common wisdom would
dictate that accidents *must* be going up (but they're
not).

Hence the paradox.

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:24:42 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
*extremely reliable*.

Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Do you remember the Fermi Paradox?

No, I don't.

As I recall, a bunch of rocket scientists were making the assumption
before lunch that aliens must exist, when, all of a sudden, Fermi, over
lunch, realized belatedly that if they do exist, then there must be some
"signal" (or evidence) from them.

Enrico Fermi said that? Because it's not true. Until humans on earth
invented radio, less than 200 years ago, there were no signals from us.

And none of our radio waves have reached places 200 light years away or
more even now.

Plus there are animals living in the woods and rivers and oceans and on
mountains and underground that people who never go to those places never
see and only know about because others have told them. If others didn't
tell them, they wouldn't know. If the animals there are sending out
signals, they are short distance signals and they don't reach me.

That evidence didn't exist.
Hence the paradox.

It's the same concept here.

1. We all assume cellphone use while driving is distracting.
2. We then assume that distracted driving causes accidents.
3. But, the belated realization is that there is no evidence supporting
this assumption in the total accident statistics (which are reliable).

Even worse, if we believe the studies and the (clearly flawed) statistics
on cellphone use while driving, that just makes the paradox WORSE!

If cellphone use is so distractingly dangerous, why isn't it *causing*
more accidents?

That's the paradox.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

I'm not sure that's true. Deaths were about 50,000 a year for a long
time, but the institution of seat belts, padded dash, dual brakes,
crumple zones, shoulder harnesses, airbags, lower speed limit** and some
things I forget lowered the number to 35,000 a year even as the number
of people driving increased with the increase in population and the
number of miles increased at least that much.

What are the fatalities now? You're concerned about accidents, but
accidents increase and decrrease as fatalities do, even if the
correlation is not 1. And fatalities are more important than
accidents, especially 100 dolllar dents,

There is no need to add second-order issues such as injuries or
fatalities to the equation because the *accident* is what matters.

We all know that nothing is simple, but, accident statistics in the USA
are reliable, and pretty simple to compile (most states have a reporting
requirement, for example).

Injuries and fatalities add a second (third and forth) order of confusion
to the mix, and yet, they add no value whatsoever because the paradox is
looking for *accidents*, not fatalities.

If people want to look at fatalities, and to ignore accidents, then we
can conclude that cellphones actually *save* lives because they get help
quickly, and they allow GPS routing to the hospital, and they allow
Google Traffic to route traffic away from the accident, etc.

So, why would you want to confuse a simple issue with fatalities and
injuries when the only result would be confusion and the lack of any
clarity if we did?

Keeping it simple and reliable:
1. We all believe cellphone use is distracting, and,
2. We all believe that distracted driving can cause accidents, and,
3. We all know cellphone ownership has shot off the charts in the past
few year, so,

The paradox is:
Q: Where are the accidents?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky
wrote:

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...nt/cell-phone/
cell-phone-statistics.html
"1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by
texting and driving."

Jeff, we know each other for years over the net, and I know you to be a
very data-based person.

Here's the paradox.

1. You and I believe that distracted driving can easily cause accidents.
2. Cellphone ownership has gone explosively up in the USA.
3. But, accidents have not.

That's the paradox.

Not if the vast majority of cell phoen users have sense enough not to
text and drive. Then the remainder will have accidents some of the
time while texting and accident rates will go up a little because of
that. But the difference between this and dui accidents versus other
accidents is that many accidents are just accidents and harder to
prevent. But people can decide in advance not to drink and drive, or
text and drive, or talk on the phone and drive, so those acts merit
extra attention, extra prevention, and extra punishment, whether they
cause an accident or not. .


Then radios in cars should be illegal and the drivers compartment
should be enclosed and soundproof so they can't interact with
passengers.