How we determine facts.

[bennyboy]

Fuck, 5 pages in and we're still not at the part where you assert that half-witted anecdotes, Biblical quotes and personal hunches are white marbles improving the "probability" that God is real.

Get to the fucking point.

[Heywood]

What's the point of this may I ask?

You can blame Stimbo for this thread. It is a consequence of this exchange I had with him.

No, I deliberately made the distinction between all pools of water and all the ones you'd ever seen. But since you've gone there, how would you go about determining the artificiality of these pools and how would you know when you've examined them all so as to form your conclusion,

In order to be absolutely positive of my conclusion I would have to examine every pool of water. However each time I examine a pool of water and find it to be artificial, while never finding one to be natural, it increases the likelyhood of all pools of water being artificial.

I can prove this concept to be true and I am thinking about doing a thread just on this concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you aren't going to own up to your own arguments, you could at least own up to the threads you created to peddle them in.

This thread exists because you're a shit and run liar-for-christ...and that has -nothing- to do with Stimbo.

[Cyberman]

Indeed. I'm not the one drawing unsafe conclusions from startlingly insufficient data.

Take your Pandora analogy. In this scenario, we will have found intelligent life on exactly two planets - intelligence on Earth being ironically relative, of course. The only safe conclusion is that intelligent life arose on two planets, extending our range of expectation for such life to the physical extremes of both worlds combined. Thus we can anticipate that the next planet we find that fits into those parameters might conceivably have intelligent life, but we can hardly state categorically that it does, or that it must.

You're not only putting the cart before the horse, you're saying that all carts have horses behind them until proven otherwise.

[Cato]

You do not understand what probability is.

Probability is not some established fact. The bag was either filled with all white marbles or it was not. The composition of the bag is a fact....and it happens to be unknown to us.

Probability is an estimate of how likely one particular set of circumstances has occurred or will occur. Because it is an estimate, it changes as available information changes. Each time you draw a marble from the bag, you obtain new information about the composition of the bag. This new information allows you to revise your estimate.

I think you are confusing probability and likelihood.

As you said, the bag contains all white marbles or it doesn't. If we know how the bag was filled we can calculate a probability that filling the bag will result in a bag of all white marbles. Observing the contents of the bag is not a causal event as related to the types of marbles it contains; therefore, it does not influence the probability of the bag containing all white marbles. Note here that observing the marbles one at a time or dumping them all out at once for observation has no effect on the probability of occurrence.

Likelihood on the other hand more accurately describes what you are attempting to convey. And no, likelihood and probability are not synonymous. If your bag contains 100 marbles, you are much more likely to have a bag of all white marbles after pulling 99 white marbles than you were after pulling the second. In this case, likelihood is a qualitative evaluation. Again, this has no influence on the probability of your bag containing all white marbles.

[Heywood]

Indeed. I'm not the one drawing unsafe conclusions from startlingly insufficient data.

Take your Pandora analogy. In this scenario, we will have found intelligent life on exactly two planets - intelligence on Earth being ironically relative, of course. The only safe conclusion is that intelligent life arose on two planets, extending our range of expectation for such life to the physical extremes of both worlds combined. Thus we can anticipate that the next planet we find that fits into those parameters might conceivably have intelligent life, but we can hardly state categorically that it does, or that it must.

You're not only putting the cart before the horse, you're saying that all carts have horses behind them until proven otherwise.

I'm not stating anything categorically. I am saying each observation which is consistent with a proposition increases the probability that proposition is true. Consider this proposition:

The coin being used in the toss is two headed.

The probability of this proposition being true is X. Each time the coin is flipped and comes up heads while never having previously come up tails, X moves closer to 1.

I may never be able to examine the coin and know for sure. Lets say I am only privy to the results of completely random flips. After 10 flips which turn out all heads, I might suspect the coin is double headed. After 100 flips which turn out to be all heads, I might believe the coin is double headed. After one googleplex of flips which all turned out to be heads....I'd be certain the coin was double headed(but it is possible I could be wrong).

I might be wrong about evolutionary systems. They may not need intellects. However each time I observe one and find that it requires or required an intellect while never observing one which I know did not require an intellect, then my confidence in the proposition that all evolutionary systems require intellects grows.

I made this thread because I apply this line of thinking in many arguments I make. It is sound thinking and I wanted to use this thread to show that it is sound thinking.

---

Likelihood on the other hand more accurately describes what you are attempting to convey. And no, likelihood and probability are not synonymous. If your bag contains 100 marbles, you are much more likely to have a bag of all white marbles after pulling 99 white marbles than you were after pulling the second. In this case, likelihood is a qualitative evaluation. Again, this has no influence on the probability of your bag containing all white marbles.

Probability is an estimate of how likely something is to be true or be the case...or come to pass. I don't need to have computed a probability to know if certain results increase or decrease it. That is part of my point.

When an atheist claims there are no observations which support the existence of God, they are wrong. There are observations which support the existence of God. They do not prove categorically that God exists but they do support the proposition. Each time that observation is replicated with out being contradicted it moves the probability of the proposition closer to 1.

[Cyberman]

Okay. Present a few of those observations and let's see how well they support the existence of "God".

[The Grand Nudger]

Consider this proposition:

The coin being used in the toss is two headed.

A statement of totality for which no amount of coin tossing will ever give you any further insight -as you've clearly managed to absorb into your skull. You are wrong about evolutionary systems, they don't require intellects, and you've never observed one that does.

"Intellect" is a sufficient, but not necessary condition. If you need help understanding this, try google, it's your friend.

[Heywood]

Consider this proposition:

The coin being used in the toss is two headed.

A statement of totality for which no amount of coin tossing will ever give you any further insight -as you've clearly managed to absorb into your skull. You are wrong about evolutionary systems, they don't require intellects, and you've never observed one that does.

"Intellect" is a sufficient, but not necessary condition. If you need help understanding this, try google, it's your friend.

The statement is not a statement of fact but rather a proposed fact....to be determined. There is a difference.

[The Grand Nudger]

My statement is one of logical principle and operation. If you want to make a claim to a logical argument or conclusion, you have to acknowledge it in your argumentation.....but I shouldn't have to explain that to you..should I? If you'd just, you know, put together a syllogism, you might be able to experience firsthand why such a distinction is useful.

(I'd suggest your spider sim as the focus of the syllogism, btw, since it seems to be the strongest example you have - and I can absolutely see why you've -intuitively- reached the conclusion you've been espousing. As in, make the argument that the spider sim has a requirement of intellect...maybe after we've handled that we can move on to bigger fish.)