A Statistics Question for Nick Matzke

_{Barry Arrington

December 16, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

If you came across a table on which was set 500 coins (no tossing involved) and all 500 coins displayed the “heads” side of the coin, would you reject “chance” as a hypothesis to explain this particular configuration of coins on a table?

Comments

MF: Pardon me but coins are a classic binary system, in effect two-sided dice. And, as can be easily confirmed, the 50:50 H:T expectation on tossing or otherwise stirring them is reasonable. If any reasonable person came across a tray of 500 coins, all H or all T or alternating H and T, s/he would very reasonably conclude the best explanation is that that was by design not random tossing. In short, the normal expectation on tossing 500 coins is a near 50:50 ratio, in no particular order. If the coins were in a near 50:50 ratio but turned out to hold the ascii code for the first 72 or so characters of this post, that too would strongly support the inference that this is by design. Shifting to D/RNA, it is a f-state discrete state system, G/C/A/T or U. In living systems, we see not 500 bits worth of code, but more like 500 k bits up to gigabits. Code seen to function in the synthesis of proteins and in the regulation of that. Where a cluster of molecular nanomachines are involved in the processing system. That alone is more than sufficient to conclude that the best explanation for such a system is design. First, 500 - 1,000 bits of FSCO/I is beyond the plausible blind search capacity of the solar system and at the upper end, the observed cosmos. For needle in haystack reasons repeatedly explained. A search involving he atomic resources of the solar system for its plausible lifespan at the fastest chem rxn rates being able to sample the config space of 500 bits as one straw to a cubical haystack 1,000 light years across (as thick as our galaxy's central bulge) boils down to a supertask not expected to come up with anything but the bulk of the distribution, coins or whatever in no particular order. Mechanical necessity does not create high contingency information systems, period. Chance based on a search that is facing a supertask joined to necessity and trial and error will predictably fail. The only reasonable, empirically grounded explanation of what we see is design. The problem is, this cuts across a dominant ideology that is now on notice once the cellular info systems were elucidated. Playing with definition games and the like, as I am seeing just confirms that you have no sound answer tot he heart of the matter. And BTW, a simple case like coin tosses with 50:50 H:T is a good test of reasonableness in addressing the matter. Yes we can go on to more complex cases [and note that the injection of constraints that bias coins will reduce effective info carrying capacity, but so long as reasonable contingency remains, the point on a tray of all H's etc remains], but if one shows himself unwilling at this level, there is no hope at the more advanced levels. I think you need to pause, take a look back and see whether you are being reasonable. Even your scenario of coins packed all H up spilling out and ending up all H (have you seen how easy it is for coins to flip or roll and bounce? . . . ) is not reasonable and implies design that set the coins to that state to begin with. My take away is that the strained nature of objections being made inadvertently shows the strength of the design inference on this simple case. KFkairosfocus_{December 18, 2013
December
12
Dec
18
18
2013
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

SteRusJon #71 Stephen
So predictable! Mark, this part of the discussion should be over. The question was very simple to answer. We should have long since moved on to what the implications are.
It would be over in no time if someone would confirm that by “chance hypothesis” the OP means “each coin had an independent probability of 50% of being heads or tails”. For some reason no one is prepared to do this.
The coins are a proxy for any system of binary states and, in turn, a proxy for any and all discrete state systems (in those facets where the behavior is the same).
The use of coins and the implication they have been tossed drags in a whole load of assumptions that are not true in general of binary states. I am simply trying to isolate those assumptions.Mark Frank_{December 18, 2013
December
12
Dec
18
18
2013
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

Henry Crun: Anti-ID advocates don't have a "line of reasoning". They have a line of denial that serves their emotional commitments.William J Murray_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

"Ideological contamination" as well as "situational blindness" can easily lead anyone astray. For the sake of scientific progress, it's better to follow the data, which can take some interesting and surprising turns, hold on to theories loosely, expecting discordant data to upset things once in a while, and always maintain a sense of curiosity and wonder. This is true regardless of your beliefs, ID or Darwinist. Unfortunately, I so far haven't been able to persuade professor Matzke to join us in a voyage to explore a small, blue, hypothetical planet nearly identical to Earth, but on which all life was ***seeded*** by scientists, researchers, and their students. The research and class projects resulted in a vast spectrum of life there. Now, first thousands and later perhaps millions of years later, we will analyze the results, applying Dr. Matzke's knowledge to determine exactly what we will expect to find. We can travel there instantaneously, and all travel expenses are covered. Professor Matzke, we're knocking on your door. We know you're in there. Please answer. Don't be a grouch. We'll all probably learn things, and it will be fun! :-) -QQuerius_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Another likely evolutionist explanation is that there is glue on the tails side of each coin such that once it lands tails, it's stuck there permanently. Inevitably, after enough "random" trials are done, all the coins eventually end up heads. This is basically equivalent to Dawkins's silly computer program. The problem is that just pushes the design up a level, where you have to assume that an intelligent agent chose to place glue on all the tails side of the coins, as opposed to on a random side of the coins. The evolutionist would then argue that glue only sticks to the tail side of the coins, because the head side of the coin is coated with Teflon. Or that a meteorite contained the coins all facing heads up, and so when it landed they were already just like that. The evolutionist makes up another explanation, ad nauseum, with each explanation being more unlikely than the last. It's hard to win an argument when the other side can introduce new unsupported premises as fact at any time.NetResearchMan_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

WOW! This thread is awesome.butifnot_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

WJM at #75, Where do you think this line of reasoning takes anti-ID advocates?Henry Crun_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Sal #83 - that's it.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Sal – sorry I didn’t see you #78 when I posted #79. The answer is to move the lowest performing students in the top stream into the bottom stream (think about it). This is known as the Will Rogers paradox.
I think I see it. I was trying to keep the streams with the same number of members, but if I relax that constraint I can do the following : Stream 1: average IQ 135 (ha!), the dunce in this stream has IQ of 100 Stream 2: average IQ 80 (ouch), the smartest one in this stream has IQ 85 I move the dunce out of Stream 1 to join stream 2. I could not solve the problem earlier because I assumed you wanted both streams to maintain the same number of members. Am I conceptualizing this correctly? Thanks in advance.scordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Sal -sliding the coins out of the packet will cause a severe bias even for standard coins.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

The trouble is these don’t cover all the relevant bases. Look again at 2. Coins can only have a slight bias if they are tossed.
One can argue that not tossing the coins (like say spinning them) will cause a severe bias in something like the putty-plus checkers coin. But at that point one is equivocating the notion of coin. I respect you raising the question. That's why in future iterations in regards to statistics, I will frame the questions hopefully in ways you will find rigorous. Though some take offense at some of your meticulousness, I don't, I'd rather say, "Mark, what is the way I can frame the discussion so there is less ambiguity." As far as ID invoking probability arguments based on assumed distribution functions which can be falsified by future discoveries, I see no problem with that. Science is about putting out falsifiable hypotheses. The Genetic Entropy hypothesis, the non-evolvability of polyconstrained DNA are falsifiable hypotheses based on assumed distributions. From a philosophical standpoint and logic, no one can assert they have the correct distribution, but it's perfectly fine to assert them for scientific inquiry and for practical matters. Salscordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Sal - sorry I didn't see you #78 when I posted #79. The answer is to move the lowest performing students in the top stream into the bottom stream (think about it). This is known as the Will Rogers paradox.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Sal #76 Correct - can you solve the other one?Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

A class of students is divided into two streams. Is it possible to raise the average intelligence of both streams without raising the average intelligence of the whole class? Correct answer: yes
This is harder. Feel free to elaborate. Thanks in advance. Salscordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Sal
1. 2-headed coin (chance ruled out in principle) 2. biased coin (since coins can only have slight bias, chance ruled out on statistical grounds ) 3. non-stochastic process like coins being packed all heads from the start (chance ruled out in principle), the only way chance is snuck in is articulating the risk the coins could have spilled out tails, but that is removing the law of independent trials on each coin, and this is an equivocation of the spirit of the discussion. 4. intelligent agencies (chance ruled out in principle)
The trouble is these don’t cover all the relevant bases. Look again at 2. Coins can only have a slight bias if they are tossed. You are making the same assumption about how the coins got there. It is an easy one to make because that is traditionally how we think of coins in a probability context. It is such a traditional assumption I asked if that was what was meant. To date no one has confirmed this. If you remove that assumption then the probability of a coin being a head on that table is totally dependent on the mechanism used to get it there. This is highly relevant to ID because it frequently uses the assumption that the probability of a string of DNA or protein meeting some specification is the result of the equivalent of a coin toss without taking account of the process for evolving the DNA. Thanks for asking about my My PhD. It is in open data and democracy. I have a diploma in statistics but more background than that qualification suggests.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Mr. Brown has exactly two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that the other is a girl? Correct answer: 2/3
Let me give it a shot. At least one boy admits the following possibilities A. Child 1: boy, Child 2: boy B. Child 1: boy, Child 2: girl C. Child 1: girl, Child 2: boy Thus 2 out of three possible scenarios involve a girl child assuming equiprobable distribution. So the probability is 2/3 as you say. Yes, that's why I've appreciated your criticisms, because you might find some error in my calculations or conception. And you've always been nice about pointing out my errors. Salscordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Anti-ID advocates are so afraid of where reasoning might lead them, they are willing to expose themselves as fools and deny the simple, the obvious, the self-evident, and the necessary.William J Murray_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Sal #69 I am glad you found that link interesting. Here are two more statistical paradoxes which show that the apparently obvious is not always true in probability: Mr. Brown has exactly two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that the other is a girl? Correct answer: 2/3 A class of students is divided into two streams. Is it possible to raise the average intelligence of both streams without raising the average intelligence of the whole class? Correct answer: yes If you are interested I can explain.
"If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."TSErik_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Sal- the key point here is what is meant by “chance as a hypothesis”.
My point was every chance hypothesis could be ruled out. I went through the hypothetical cases that covered all the relevant bases. 1. 2-headed coin (chance ruled out in principle) 2. biased coin (since coins can only have slight bias, chance ruled out on statistical grounds ) 3. non-stochastic process like coins being packed all heads from the start (chance ruled out in principle), the only way chance is snuck in is articulating the risk the coins could have spilled out tails, but that is removing the law of independent trials on each coin, and this is an equivocation of the spirit of the discussion. 4. intelligent agencies (chance ruled out in principle)
Probability and statistics is a hard subject and I think I am better at it then most people.
I have suspected from the quality of your math that your PhD studies are in probability and statistics. Is that correct? Now you may wonder why I requested Barry to post this discussion. It wasn't so much to argue statistics, it was to illustrate Nick's determination to disagree with everything I said, even when it was blatantly obvious I was right (like the 2-headed coin). I respect you have some reservations about criticizing a colleague, but at some point, you should apply hold him to the same standards you are trying to hold us and say and exercise some tough love: "Nick, 2-headed coins have no chance of being tails, ever!" When you look at the discussion in that light, you'll see it had little to do with statistics but more about Dr. Matzke's determination to save face even when he is wrong. That is unworthy of a scientist of his stature. It raises the question, what other ideas is he wrong about that he will defend at all costs. If he can't even admit error on 2-headed coin, will he ever admit error on bigger questions. You wonder why I pick on Nick and not on you. I've tried to be nice and civil to Nick in the past, but there was no reciprocity. I found you to always be quite civil in disagreement and I have high regard for your math. Sorry we're on other sides of this debate. Salscordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Sal #69 I am glad you found that link interesting. Here are two more statistical paradoxes which show that the apparently obvious is not always true in probability: Mr. Brown has exactly two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that the other is a girl? Correct answer: 2/3 A class of students is divided into two streams. Is it possible to raise the average intelligence of both streams without raising the average intelligence of the whole class? Correct answer: yes If you are interested I can explain.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Mark,
I have several times above said that I gladly reject the hypothesis that the 500 heads is the result of tossing each coin independently. Is this not charitable in seeking to understand what the OP was getting at? If that is what you mean – then all is agreed and the discussion is over. But I think you mean something else which is why I am asking for an explanation. But you won’t even be clear whether it is something else, much less explain what that something else is. (SteRusJon has describes it as a “pure chance event” but this doesn’t add much!). This is why I am hesitating.
So predictable! Mark, this part of the discussion should be over. The question was very simple to answer. We should have long since moved on to what the implications are. It is telling that the various members of the anti-ID cohort can't bring themselves to look for the meat and potatoes meaning of a pro-ID post and deal with it. Is it because the anti-IDist don't like the possible implications? But, no! Time to double down. You have to go after some more ancillary crap like "intelligence has a role in all configurations of coins." That is not dealing with the point of the OP. The coins are a proxy for any system of binary states and, in turn, a proxy for any and all discrete state systems (in those facets where the behavior is the same). The coin system is a simplification, an idealization, that is supposed to make the problem tractable. Instead of focusing on the pertinent aspects of the coin system, you continue to press on with irrelevancies. Anti-IDist almost invariably latch onto some imprecision (real or perceived) in a pro-ID statement to avoid dealing with the central point currently under discussion. (That is the kind of thing I was referring to when I spoke of the lack of charity.) The current thread is, as are most others here at UD, a glaring example of just that. Why do you all have such an obsessive need to muddy the waters with so much BS. Oh, by "pure chance event" I was simply trying to get you all to focus on the crux of the issue instead of things like "humans make coins" and "humans flip coins" and "humans stack coins" therefore there is some ID in any and all events involving coins BS. Come on guys. FOCUS! Stephen PS. Theoretical physics must drive some of you bananas with its idealized constructs. Spheres instead if oblate spheroids. Centers of gravity in place of distributed masses. Ideal gases, absolute vacuums and point particles.SteRusJon_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Sal #67 Sal- the key point here is what is meant by “chance as a hypothesis”. I have said more times than I can count that if what Barry meant was: “each coin had an independent probability of 50% of being heads or tails” (A) …. (I have labelled this hypothesis (A) because I refer to it a number of times). then I would reject the hypothesis. I said this as my very first comment #3. All Barry had to do was say – “that’s what I meant” and the debate would have stopped there as far as I am concerned. However, no one, including yourself or Barry, has confirmed that this is what “chance hypothesis” meant. If he meant something like “some stochastic process was responsible for the configuration” then I would not reject the hypothesis because it is easy to think of stochastic processes which are quite likely to produce 500 heads. But mainly this whole thread has been a plea for clarity which for some reason has upset a lot of people. In the light of this let me pick up some of your specific points.
If your scenario was the case, then that means the coins didn’t really go through a stochastic process but were in the initial condition of all heads. In such case you’d still reject chance as the primary mechanism.
A stochastic process can begin with any starting condition you care to mention including all heads. It is not the starting condition that makes it stochastic. It is stochastic if there is an element of chance (!) in the process. In my example there is – the coins could have tipped over while sliding out of their packet. I should have made that clear.
When we talk about chance being the mechanism, we are talking about what would be the expected outcome of a relevant chance process, and the expected outcome is 50% heads or close to it (since coins must generally be fair as elaborated in the paper I cited). If we see something 22 standard deviations from expectation, I’d reject chance as a mechanism.
The 50% figure (and your paper) is true if you assume (A). My whole point was to ask if that was the assumption was what was meant by “chance”.
The scenario you introduced is not relevant since it essentially precludes chance from acting on the coins individually.
I am not sure what you mean by that. As each coin slipped out of the packet it had a chance of flipping over – albeit a very small one.
One could say, “well chance is still involved because tails could have spilled out.” In that case we could also say, chance was involved since an earthquake could have happened and prevented the coins from being on the table (even though it didn’t) and since we didn’t factor the Earthquake chance hypothesis, we haven’t rejected all chance hypotheses.
Yes – some hypotheses, like the earthquake, have very low prior probabilities and can be ignored – others have to be taken seriously. But it is really hard to assign prior probabilities without more context. Perhaps this is all happening during an earthquake!
But that certainly isn’t the spirit of the question, and certainly if one has a title “A statistics question”, I’d expect an answer like the one given by sixthbook.
Sixthbook’s answer assumed (A). (You should not use statistical tests unless you are clear about your assumptions – it is an elementary rule.)
…. you seem to be stuck in thinking this was a question about ID or design, it wasn’t, it was far more minimal.
I think it is a question about the meaning of the phrase “chance hypothesis” that’s all.
The question was asking whether you would reject chance as a hypothesis. ID and design weren’t even on the table, but Nick was unwilling to concede even one micron of ground when it was clear he made some obvious errors in basic logic and statistics.
I won’t inspect Nick’s comments for errors but there are plenty of fundamental errors in logic and statistics on display above! Probability and statistics is a hard subject and I think I am better at it then most people.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Mark, You provided this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy That was informative. I was unaware of this data point. Thank you. Salscordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Well, you see Sal, some of the coins could have adhesives on one side with a second heads printed on them and through flipping, or any activity, could cause the sticker to fall off thereby revealing a tails result and reintroducing chance! How’d I do? Does that sound convincing enough? Am I a Darwinist now?
Oh my goodness, I'm almost tempted to start a humor thread "Give Nick Matzke your best Chewbacca Defense". I'd say:
Nick's been in a rut lately. Sal said that a 2-headed coin would preclude chance as a mechanism even in principle with respect to a 500 all-heads coin pattern. Nick disagreed and said, “not really”. How is there a chance tails could emerge as an outcome with a 2-headed coin? How can one insist chance can still have a role in the final outcome in this case? Nick has put himself in an indefensible position, please do your best Johnny Cochran imitation and help Nick out.
Give it your best guys. Johnny Cochran provided a model to defend such and indefensible case:
Cochran: ...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Gerald Broflovski: Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense! Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
The Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy used in episode 27 of South Park, "Chef Aid",.... The aim of the argument is to deliberately confuse the jury by making use of the fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi (or a red herring). The concept satirised attorney Johnnie Cochran's closing argument defending O. J. Simpson in his murder trial. In the satire's original defense, the fictional Cochran started by stating, incorrectly, that Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. After then noting that this statement "does not make sense", Cochran continues to connect the senselessness of his own statement to the actual case, implying that it is equally senseless. His closing argument "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit" is lampooning the real Cochran's "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit".
scordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

So they could easily spill out of the packet all the same way up providing the all heads configuration. This is not some fanciful option. It is quite realistic.
Mark, I can almost count on my hand the number of times I've ever publicly disagreed with you, but this has to be one of them. The question posed was, whether you would reject chance as a hypothesis. If your scenario was the case, then that means the coins didn't really go through a stochastic process but were in the initial condition of all heads. In such case you'd still reject chance as the primary mechanism. When we talk about chance being the mechanism, we are talking about what would be the expected outcome of a relevant chance process, and the expected outcome is 50% heads or close to it (since coins must generally be fair as elaborated in the paper I cited). If we see something 22 standard deviations from expectation, I'd reject chance as a mechanism. The scenario you introduced is not relevant since it essentially precludes chance from acting on the coins individually. One could say, "well chance is still involved because tails could have spilled out." In that case we could also say, chance was involved since an earthquake could have happened and prevented the coins from being on the table (even though it didn't) and since we didn't factor the Earthquake chance hypothesis, we haven't rejected all chance hypotheses. But that certainly isn't the spirit of the question, and certainly if one has a title "A statistics question", I'd expect an answer like the one given by sixthbook. Perhaps you're standing your ground to defend your friends, and that is an honorable thing. You raised a question that might be on the minds of some, but you seem to be stuck in thinking this was a question about ID or design, it wasn't, it was far more minimal. The question was asking whether you would reject chance as a hypothesis. ID and design weren't even on the table, but Nick was unwilling to concede even one micron of ground when it was clear he made some obvious errors in basic logic and statistics.scordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Sal:
We could milk it more by asking:
Nick, Sal said that a 2-headed coin would preclude chance as a mechanism even in principle with respect to a 500 all-heads coin pattern. You disagreed and said, “not really”. Can you elaborate further how there is a chance tails could emerge as an outcome with a 2-headed coin since you insist chance can still have a role in the final outcome.
Well, you see Sal, some of the coins could have adhesives on one side with a second heads printed on them and through flipping, or any activity, could cause the sticker to fall off thereby revealing a tails result and reintroducing chance! How'd I do? Does that sound convincing enough? Am I a Darwinist now?TSErik_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

MF #61: You have to have some hypothesis about how that configuration was produced which means having a least some idea of the physical objects which have been configured.
You are safe to assume that we are talking about two-sided and fair coins.
MF #61: You may want to separate the creation and distribution of the coins from the process used to configure them but this is not a clear distinction.
In fact there is a clear distinction if we assume two-sided, fair and unpacked coins. In which case we can arrange a mechanism of distribution resulting in a configuration entirely caused by chance.
MF #61: I believe coins are typically manufactured and distributed in packets all the same way up (if it doesn’t happen that way it certainly could). So they could easily spill out of the packet all the same way up providing the all heads configuration. This is not some fanciful option. It is quite realistic.
Contemplating this hypothetical case you rightly point out that intelligence is involved - as have others. So we are in agreement here: also in this scenario chance is ruled out as a sole cause.Box_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

I don't think they're "defending their reputation"; I think most of these guys think they are actually arguing in good faith. That's why I consider a kind of psychosis. It's more along the lines of a mental disease than it is ego. At the end of the day, though, it really doesn't matter if the barbarians at the gates bent on destroying society are evil or mad; they still have to be defeated and, mad or evil, reason and logic won't get the job done.William J Murray_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Ste, that’s why we secretly keep Nick on the payroll here at UD. One gobsmacking imbecilic blithering after another from a nationally prominent Darwinist. He’s worth his weight in gold to the ID movement, and he works for peanuts.
We could milk it more by asking:
Nick, Sal said that a 2-headed coin would preclude chance as a mechanism even in principle with respect to a 500 all-heads coin pattern. You disagreed and said, "not really". Can you elaborate further how there is a chance tails could emerge as an outcome with a 2-headed coin since you insist chance can still have a role in the final outcome.
It's no longer merely about materialist fighting ID, it's about saving face at all costs.scordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

I have to admit, when I read the OP, I was a bit discouraged because Barry didn't use the word "fair" to describe the coins. Why was I discouraged? Because I knew by doing so, the anti-IDists would seize on the omission. But I was willing to work with the hand dealt. Mercifully Barry didn't ask, "was the configuration designed?". This was a more minimal question:
would you reject “chance” as a hypothesis to explain this particular configuration of coins on a table?
Further, the question wasn't "is chance a possible explanation" but whether "would you [Nick Matzke] reject chance". That means, for Nick at a personal level, would he really practically speaking in his heart reject chance? This wasn't a philosophical question about UPB or multiverses, etc. This was a question to Nick about what he would do. So Barry dealt the ID side a pretty good hand, and all we had to do was play the hand. But the other side simply wouldn't fold. Darwinists never fold. Nick could have said, "If by chance you mean a stochastic process acting on the coin, I'd reject chance, but this trivial game is irrelevant to evolutionary biology, I'm done playing stupid games." and maybe left the debate with some semblance of honor. But instead Nick tries to argue a 2-headed coin scenario is a chance process. If the coins are 2-headed there is no chance for any other outcome, hence logically speaking, chance cannot play a role even in principle. But far be it for Nick to humble himself before a creationist and say, "actually Sal, you're right, I made a mistake." In stead he offers this Chewbacca Defense:
Not really. Under this hypothesis, the arrangement and sides of the coins are all random. It’s just the thing we are scoring, heads, happens to be found on both sides of the coins.
:-) Seriously Dr. Matzke, if your students pointed out to you that 2-headed coin precludes chance as a mechanism even in principle, can you in good conscience give them this sort of Chewbacca answer? But, nooo, if Sal points that out to you, you have to save face at all costs. It's far beneath you to admit a mistake. You could have said something to take the edge off your error: "yes of course we're talking the chance hypothesis, not the design hypothesis. My bad". But no, the poster boy of the Dover trial has to appear infallible at all times, especially when sparring with a creationist. 1. If the coin was found 2-headed, you'd still reject chance 2. if the coin wasn't 2-headed, based on the paper at Columbia University "you can load a die, but you can't bias a coin" you'd still reject chance. Coins, based on physics, can't be very much biased when making randomized outcomes 3. if the packing process caused the coins to be heads, that still reject the chance hypothesis And finally, the question was entitled "A Statistics Question for Nick Matzke". You'd think a PhD Evolutionary biologist from the Berzerkely would start thinking of textbook statistics and not Bill Clinton's playbook of equivocations. I take that back, maybe that's the way an evolutionary biologist is trained to think.... Thank you sixthbook for actually quoting textbook statistics!
SteRusJon If there is the slightest crack to squirm through they will try, rather than concede any point. In my opinion, an honest seeker (skeptic?) would ask for clarification if there is some ambiguity and be charitable in seeking to understand what the OP was getting at. I don’t see them doing that. Instead, they expend great effort to not deal with the issues at hand. ... Really makes them look fanatical rather than skeptical.
It's not just skepticism at this point, but defending reputations. Darwinists don't know when to fold, if I'd face opponents like that at the poker table, I'd start playing poker.scordova_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply