I like the concept, it's a cool way of introducing Bayesian probabilities!
The conclusion strikes me as overly confident, though. It implies that if we had 100 Han Solo's, we are very confident that about 3/4 of them are going to make it through. This comes about because it uses this:
We're going to say that C3PO has records of two people surviving and 7,440 people ending their trip through the asteroid field in a glorious explosion.
as data for Han's odds of making it. But 100 out-of-shape people dying on the ascent of Mount Everest does not tell us anything about the odds for someone who is very fit.
I would rather model that there is no one true probability of making it through - it's going to be dependent on the pilot. Mediocre pilots might have odds in the neighborhoud of 1/3720, but there is presumably a lot of variance depending on skill, and my prior belief is that Han would wind up in the upper end of the distribution.
The conclusion strikes me as overly confident, though. It implies that if we had 100 Han Solo's, we are very confident that about 3/4 of them are going to make it through. This comes about because it uses this:
We're going to say that C3PO has records of two people surviving and 7,440 people ending their trip through the asteroid field in a glorious explosion.
as data for Han's odds of making it. But 100 out-of-shape people dying on the ascent of Mount Everest does not tell us anything about the odds for someone who is very fit.
I would rather model that there is no one true probability of making it through - it's going to be dependent on the pilot. Mediocre pilots might have odds in the neighborhoud of 1/3720, but there is presumably a lot of variance depending on skill, and my prior belief is that Han would wind up in the upper end of the distribution.