Slashdot Mirror
Rand Expert Says To Keep Mum About Killer Asteroids
crashnbur writes "NASA is conducting a survey of the sky to find asteroids large enough that a collision with earth could 'extinction-type impact', and none studied so far will threaten us in the next 200 years. Of course, if a doomsday asteroid is discovered, the current policy is not to say a word: 'If you can't do anything about a warning, then there is no point in issuing a warning at all', says Dr. Geoffery Sommer. The issue may be making its rounds because an asteroid was discovered orbiting the sun between Venus and Earth earlier this week. Space.com presents a lengthy, four-part 'Impact Debate' (next three parts coming next three Tuesdays). Apparently we are just as likely to die by asteroid impact as in a plane crash."
Your conclusion is roughly correct as far as the stats goes. But what I think you've really done is illustrate why statistical and probabilistic models are basically worthless in the real world, and especially at (and between) extremes. It's kind of like asking whether it's worth spending one dollar on a 6/49 lottery when the jackpot is worth 7 million versus 14 million - how much is the "dollar" worth. It's an intensely reductionist phrasing of the question that ignores the surrounding reality (in this case, that winning the lottery is winning the lottery, period).
Losing the asteroid lottery is completely unlike losing the airplane lottery. The comparison is useless; it's really a type of argument by analogy, which is a fallacy. I realise it's someone's attempt to make things understandable to the lay media (or push an agenda there), but it does nothing besides muddy the issue.
The truth is that people can't wrap their heads around probablistic assessments anyway, so trying to make persuasive arguments to the masses that way is folly. And making a probabalistic comparison between two such different things borders on dishonest.