鄧永鏘（DavidTang） 中國會、上海灘創辦人
Idetestadjectivesandadverbsinbusiness.ItellmystaffthatIwon'tallowthemintheirmemos.Iftheywanttosayturnoverisgood,Iwanttoknowhowgood.10%better?Or20%better?Iftheywanttosaywehavehadabadyear,Iwanttoknowhowbad.50%belowbudgetor,asitwasduringSARS,75%below?Thetroubleisthatoftenadjectivesandadverbsdonotpresentanaccuratepictureofreality.Worsestill,theyaresometimesusedaseuphemisms.Thesearewoollywordsdesignedtocoveruphowbadsomethingactuallyis.SowhentheSecretaryforHealth,WelfareandFoodMrChowsaidthisweekthatwedidn'thavetobealarmedaboutcontaminatedfish,Iwishedhewouldnotjusttellusthatpositivetestingformalachitegreenwas"onthelowside".Howlow?2%?5%?10%?Sometimesevenl5%or20%canbesaidtobelow.Butifitwas0.5%or1%,thatwouldbereallylow.Whycan'tpeoplejustquantifyresults?Indeed,inmattersofhealth,itisimportantbusinessforthepublictobetoldproperandaccurateinformationbythegovernmentofficial.Ifmalachitegreencausescancer,weallwanttoknowhowmuchofitwouldcausecancerandinwhatpercentage.Quantification,quantification,quantification!
EventhegreatBBCcommitsthissinofbeingvague.Nowadays,intheirbusinessreports,thereportersimplysaysthiscompany'sprofitshavegoneup,orthatcompany'sturnoverhasgonedown.Invariably,theyuseadjectivessuchas"good"or"bad",andadverbssuchas"well"and"poorly".ItseemsludicroustomethattheBBCcannotreportsimplepercentages,especiallyinfinancialreporting.Sothistrendofsubstitutinghardfactswithvagueadjectivesandadverbsisprevalent,andIfeelverystronglyweshouldalldosomethingabout.ItoldthistotheChairmanoftheBBCwhenIsawhimrecentlyinSingapore.Heagreed!Let'ssee.YoumightallwatchBBCWorldBusinesstotestwhatIamtellingyou.Alsotestitwithlocalnewspapersandtelevisionstations.Ibetyouthatyouwillhearumpteenadjectivesandadverbsandhardlyeveranybarefigures.Itdrivesmeupthewall.
Goingbacktoquantification,IrememberoneofthemostusefulthingsIeverlearntinmylifewhenIreadphilosophyatuniversity.Ourprofessorsetoutthefollowingparadox:-
Considertheproposition:
Allravensareblack.
Inlogic,thatisequivalentto:
Ifxisaraven,thenxisblack.
Which,alsologically,isequivalentto:
Ifxisnotblack,thenxisnotaraven.
Nowconsiderawhitepieceofchalk,say.Thiswhitepieceofchalkisnotblack.Itisalsonotaraven.Therefore,thechalkmustconfirmthepropositionthatallravensareblack!Buthowcanawhitepieceofchalkconfirmthehypothesisthatallravensareblack?Isn'tthereaparadox?Haslogicgonewrongsomewhere?
Theanswerisno.Actually,thewhitepieceofchalkDOESconfirmthehypothesisthatallravensareblack.Youonlyhavetothinkhowthehypothesishastobeprovedconclusively.Itwouldrequireadreamexperimentinwhichallthethingsintheworldareinspectedanddiscoveringthatallnon-blackthingsarenotravens.Obviously,therearetrillionsandtrillionsofnon-blackthingsintheworld,soonepieceofchalkisaninfinitesimalsampleofthetotalityofthings.Accordingly,itdoesconfirmthehypothesis.Butthedegreeofitsconfirmationissominutethatitistotallyinsignificant.Ergo,thereisnoparadoxafterall!
Ifyouwereamathematicianorevenbetterastatistician,youwouldnotbesurprisedwiththeconclusion,asitispartofthefamousBayes'sTheorems.IpresentedthisparadoxatoneofthosebigdinnersatwhichIwasinvitedtobetheafter-dinnerspeaker.ItwasaneventorganizedbytheSocietyofCharteredAccountants.Iamafraidtheresponsewasnotparticularlygood.EveryonelookeddumbfoundedalthoughIhadhopedtheaudience,beingnecessarilynumerate,musthavefoundtheparadoxintriguingandcomprehensible.Ittaughtmealessonnottoassumetoomuchfromaccountants.Soifyouhaven'tunderstoodthisshamparadox,don'tworrytoomuch.IfallthecharteredaccountantsinHongKongdidn'tseemtounderstandit,youcanbeexcusedforbeingabitstupid!Soareyoustupid?