March 2010 Archives

I appear to have found myself engaged with @angelneptustar, an astrology fan and also a Boris Johnson fan.

This came about through Marsh's post at the Mersyside Skeptics site. I read through the HuffPo article in question (I refuse to link to that rag, but you can follow through to it if you really wish) where angelneptustar comments on Boris Johnson's astrology chart and how it shows he is very talented.

Browsing my arxiv feeds this morning, I picked up this post - "A defense of Columbo (and of the use of Bayesian inference in forensics): A multilevel introduction to probabilistic reasoning" by G. D'Agostini.

Considering the topic, it's an enjoyable read. It's motivated by this NewScientist article from late last year. I criticised that article myself but did not touch upon the incident with Columbo. D'Agostini provides a fairly clear if mildly technical explanation of the mathematics behind the problem expressed - of the strength of the evidence against the killer Columbo caught when he picked one of thirteen (or twelve, as the NewScientist article says, but that's a minor niggle) cameras off a shelf, taking the one involved in the crime. As NewScientist says:

If only it were that simple. Killer or not, anyone would have a 1 in 12 chance of picking the same camera at random. That kind of evidence would never stand up in court.

Not so long ago, the Science and Technology delivered their report on homeopathy. It wasn't to homeopaths tastes. If you haven't heard of the story, I recommend Martin Robbins' piece for the Guardian.

The British Homeopathic Association has felt the need to respond. I thought I would take a look at parts of it.