From: James Wetterau (jwjr@ignition.name.net)
Date: Tue Oct 26 1999 - 08:56:10 MDT
Dan Fabulich says:
> 'What is your name?' 'Clint O'Dell.' 'IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME
> IS!!!':
I would like to take this opportunity to report that I find the above
SHOUTED sentences jarring and mildly annoying in their repetition
every time I encounter them, about as much as noisy radio ads. This
disinclines me to read the posts they head. Are they meant to serve
some purpose other than annoying the reader?
> > I know the laws of probability are real not because I BELIEVE in it but
> > because I CAN PROVE IT.
>
> <devil's advocacy>
>
> Ahem. I assert that you cannot prove it. Robert attacked probability on
> its strongest side... What would you say to this experiment?
>
> I assert that it is completely impossible for you to flip a coin 1 million
> times and have it turn up heads every time. When I say completely
> impossible, I mean that it will never EVER happen, no matter how many
> times you try.
>
> </devil's advocacy>
It gets worse. If he did go ahead and flip the coin and get the
result you predict he cannot, you'd probably question the "fairness"
of the coin. There is a circularity in the definition of probability
which is maddening to contemplate.
Just try defining probability in non-circular terms (synonomous terms
marked with "*"): "When we say it is *probable* we mean that it is
*likely* ... err, that is, we mean that if we repeat the experiment
the proportions of the results will *tend to be*, um, no, the results
will have a certain proportion, *within a certain confidence*. Ooops,
um, give me a minute ..." So far, the only non-circular definition I
have found is a mathematical definition claiming certainty in results
iff we take limits as the number of experiments goes to infinity.
(Any intermediate gains in certainty at high finite numbers of trials
are usually themselves expressed as probabilities, which means it would take
an infinite number of them to confirm them with certainty!) Another
gambit is to shift the burden off to a "rational wagerer", which
merely moves the circularity into the wagerer's head, ensuring it will
be out of view.
Oddly, probability appears to be a concept which people intuitively
understand but which can only be non-circularly defined in terms of
infinite series. I have to wonder if that, too, begs the question, as
it is an appeal to a non-testable hypothesis. (If only we could have
infinite trials, you'd see!) There's something very fishy about
probability.
Regards,
James Wetterau
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:38 MST