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

#59 Box
And this discussion is about the explanation of a configuration – not the occurrence of coins
You cannot estimate the probability of a configuration in the abstract. 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 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. 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.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

NickMatzke_UD:
You seem frustrated by our responses. What you aren’t getting is that probability calculations depend on the model that you assume for the process generating the outcomes.
One hundred years ago, Paul Ehrenfest was analyzing Planck's equation and the notion of the quanta proposed by Einstein. If you've looked at the derivation of Planck's Equation (from which we have his 'constant'), you'll see that he uses Boltzman's thermodynamic equation. Planck opposed Boltzman's idea of the 'statistical' nature of thermodynamics, but he was at a complete loss. Employing Boltzman's equation, roughly S=klogW, gave him the right answer to the UV catastrophe of 'black-box' radiation. Now, Ehrenfest investigated this connection between 'quanta' (understood from Planck's 'constant') and the Bohr-Sommerfeld treatment of 'action' used in their analysis of Bohr's atomic theory. What Ehrenfest found was that Boltzman assumed that the phase space of molecules is completely equi-probable, i.e., a uniform distribution. He found that when he evaluated the orbital Hamiltonian of Bohr-Sommerfeld that there were regions of the phase space that had ZERO probability. This was simply imposed by the conditions of the quanta themselves (basically, atomic orbitals and spherical harmonics applied to them). Now, this proves that Boltzman was wrong in postulating that the phase space of atoms and molecules represents a uniform distribution; and, yet, his statistical treatment of degrees of freedom still gives valid results and is still taught. Interestingly, it is Boltzman's equation that was utilized by Shannon in his definition of 'information', and then used by Dembski in defining CSI. And the Darwinists holler and holler: "But we don't know what the EXACT probability distribution is!!!!!!" Boltzman was WRONG in saying the complete phase space was "uniform"--his, per your quote, "model" was wrong; however, his thermodynamics is valid. Another post compares THH to HHH, and such. While Boltzman did not EXACTLY know the distribution he was dealing with at all times, nevertheless, he came up with the right answer. When in doubt, assume a uniform distribution. We know enough; and what we know tells us that "chance", or "random", isn't the answer. Why spit at the truth?PaV_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Box #56: Why can a configuration not be 100% determined by chance?

MF #58: Because they are coins. Coins are made and distributed (and tossed) by intelligent people. They never occur totally naturally.
The configuration, is not (necessarily) caused by intelligent people. And this discussion is about the explanation of a configuration - not the occurrence of coins.Box_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

#56 Box
Why can a configuration not be 100% determined by chance?
Because they are coins. Coins are made and distributed (and tossed) by intelligent people. They never occur totally naturally.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

#53 and #54 selvaRajan and SteRusJon 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.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Mark, You say (post #55) 'intelligence has a role in all configurations of coins' - and for this reason you reject the possibility that chance is the sole cause. But why should intelligence always have a role? Why can a configuration not be 100% determined by chance?Box_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

#51 Box
The question is: ‘do you reject, from a practical standpoint, the possibility that chance is the sole cause for this particular configuration of coins?’
I am not sure that the clause "from a practical standpoint" means. However, if you literally mean "do you reject the possibility that chance is the sole cause for this particular configuration of coins?" my answer is probably yes - because I take that as equivalent to "intelligence has no role to play in the configuration" and intelligence has a role in all configurations of coins so naturally it includes this configuration.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Barry, Obfuscating and dissembling, indeed. You have to paint these guys in so tight that they just can't get out. 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. Reminds me of someone who didn't quite understand what was meant by "is". Maybe they don't really want the truth to see the light of day either. The OP was simply stated. Of all the hypothetical scenarios of how the coins could have come to be all heads that come to my mind, a pure chance event is the lowest on my list of possibilities ranked in order of plausibility. All of the competing hypothesis rank higher. That is rejection of the pure chance hypothesis in these people's precious scientific sense. Why they can't just say so is beyond me. Really makes them look fanatical rather than skeptical. StephenSteRusJon_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Mark @50, :-) I really can't understand why there is hesitation in answering straight forward question of Barry. As you know there can be no end to clarification questions -In how many rows and columns are the coins arranged? Is the arrangement of coin circular? When was the coin minted? May be it got corroded on one side so the fair coin became unfair? Was acetone applied or other cleaning chemicals applied unevenly to the coin - it could affect the weight on either side of coin, Was the wind speed varying in and around the table and so on. I really see no reason to hesitate unless this is some kind of deliberate trap set by Barry for Nick :-), but still I can't understand your hesitation.selvaRajan_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

MF:
then presumably it is easy to explain what it does mean to the benighted masses who do not understand it
I categorically reject the premise of the question. You do understand the phrase (everyone with a basic grasp of English grammar and syntax understands the phrase). But you believe it is in your interest to pretend otherwise. Not going to rise to your bait Mark.
Many of you clearly think that asking Barry to clarify his OP is perverse stupidity and the meaning is obvious.
Truth.
All I am asking for is some clarity about the hypothesis that is being rejected . . .
No, you are obfuscating and dissembling.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Mark #46: I interpret the OP with difficulty (unless it means “someone had independently tossed each coin and each coin was fair.”) because chance is always involved in some way and in the case of coins human intelligence is always involved.
The question is: ‘do you reject, from a practical standpoint, the possibility that chance is the sole cause for this particular configuration of coins?’ The question is not: ‘do you rule out the possibility that chance is involved as a sub-cause for this particular configuration of coins?’. BTW: I don’t think that it is correct to state, with respect to the configuration of coins – which is the subject at hand -, that chance is always involved, as you have written. However, it doesn’t seem to make any difference for the topic at hand.Box_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

More generally to all you IDists. Many of you clearly think that asking Barry to clarify his OP is perverse stupidity and the meaning is obvious. Questions of statistics and probability are notorious for appearing to be obvious and actually being quite subtle and complex. (As it happens, the legal profession have a particularly poor reputation in this respect to the extent that they have a fallacy named after them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy). All I am asking for is some clarity about the hypothesis that is being rejected - to the extent that I have even suggested what that hypothesis might be. This is important because it is the same fuzzy thinking that underlies much of ID - assuming a specific probability distribution, calling it "chance" and then arguing "not chance, therefore design".Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Barry So if it is stupid to question the meaning of: would you reject ‘chance’ as a hypothesis to explain this particular configuration of coins on a table? then presumably it is easy to explain what it does mean to the benighted masses who do not understand it. Would you care to do so?Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Box #46 I interpret the OP with difficulty (unless it means “someone had independently tossed each coin and each coin was fair.") because chance is always involved in some way and in the case of coins human intelligence is always involved.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Mark @ 45. By now you should know that when you say stupid things in a combox attached to one of my posts, I will point it out, often in unflattering ways. You said it is hard to know what the following phrase means: “would you reject 'chance' as a hypothesis to explain this particular configuration of coins on a table?" That statement is aggressively stupid. When you are being intentionally obtuse in order to distract and obfuscate, don’t expect to be treated gently. And yes, that is something one learns in the law. My gruff responses to intentional obfuscation (as opposed to good faith disagreement, which I hope I treat with charity) are not gratuitous. They have a purpose, to discourage these sorts of antics. I hope you will pick up on that.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Mark,
Box #40: In post #35 you suggest that the question in the OP is “would you reject chance?” – as in ‘would you exclude every involvement of chance; however small?’

Mark #42: That would be absurd – there is always some element of chance however much intelligence is involved.
Yet, in post #37, you are arguing for the possibility that chance may be involved in a minor way – e.g. the 5 packages scenario. From which I conclude that you interpret the question in the OP in a warped way.Box_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

#43 Barry Barry - I made an explicit guess at what you meant: "someone had independently tossed each coin and each coin was fair." If that is what you meant - fine. I think we can all safely reject that hypothesis. But I suspect you mean something else. However, you also seem very reluctant to explain what is and would prefer to fall back on personal comments. Is this what your legal training involved?Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

I can’t decide if it is more sad or more pathetic.
Equal parts both.
Chewbacca defenses don’t make sense. Ours did. Therefore, your accusation of a Chewbacca Defense is, ironically, itself a Chewbacca Defense.
^^^ Did Matzke just counter with "I know you are but what am I?"TSErik_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

MF: “As I said, in the case of coins it is hard to know what this means.” Typical materialist dodge. When evidence and logic fail them they can always fall back on “me no speaka zee English.” I can’t decide if it is more sad or more pathetic.Barry Arrington_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Box ‘would you exclude every involvement of chance; however small?’ That would be absurd – there is always some element of chance however much intelligence is involved. ’can chance alone produce this configuration?’ As I said, in the case of coins it is hard to know what this means. Intelligence involved in the manufacture and distribution of coins. Does this count? If not, where is the line drawn? Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

//
IOW: can chance alone produce this configuration?
This is a mistake. I should have written: IOW: Do you believe, from a practical standpoint, that chance alone produced this configuration?Box_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

Mark, in post #35 you suggest that the question in the OP is “would you reject chance?” - as in ‘would you exclude every involvement of chance; however small?’ That is not the question in the OP at all. From the OP: (…) would you reject “chance” as a hypothesis to explain this particular configuration of coins on a table? IOW: can chance alone produce this configuration?Box_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

#38 Andre
Mark its right about now that you should rather put a sock in it…….
I can understand that trying to explore things in a bit more detail is difficult for you - but others may be interested.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

Mark its right about now that you should rather put a sock in it.......Andre_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

#36 coldcoffee Part of the problem, as I say, is that it is hard to conceive of any scenario which results in 500 coins on a table without human intervention at some stage - whether they be 500 heads or any other configuration. Even 500 coin tosses needs someone to toss them or arrange for them to be tossed by machine in a fair way. So it is hard to know what is the hypothesis Barry wishes to reject. Assuming you allow some human intervention there are numerous ways that an element of chance might be involved. for example, they might have been delivered as 5 packets of 100 coins straight from the manufacturer where the manufacturing process would creates them all the same way up in a packet - by chance all 5 packets were heads up. There might have been far more coins, but the design of the heads side had lower friction than the tails. The table was tipped and the heads down coins slid off. etc.Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank =>However, the question was “would you reject chance”? and this is a vague statement that needs clarification . Me => What more clarification can there be? Barry Arrington clearly states the coins are set on table. I can't think of any way chance alone can help set the coins on table in all heads up sequence.coldcoffee_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

I think there is quite a lot of confusion here. I imagine I speak for Nick in what follows. No one deny that if you walk into a room and find 500 two-sided normal looking coins on a table all heads the most plausible explanation is that someone placed them that way. People are often found in rooms and like placing things in patterns. One of the least likely explanations is that someone tossed each coin just once and they all happened to land heads. There is no need for a chi square test – it is sufficient to use the binomial distribution to calculate the probability of such an extreme result given the hypothesis. However, the question was “would you reject chance”? and this is a vague statement that needs clarification . We were explicitly told not to assume the coins were tossed . So there is an infinite variety of hypotheses about how they ended up on the table. Almost all hypotheses involving coins, which are man-made artefacts, are going to involve intelligence at some point (even 500 coin tosses involves an element of intelligence) so just saying “chance” is meaningless. The attempt to clarify what it means resulted in a stream of abuse at Nick (I seem to be lucky on this occasion) but not much that helped clarify what was meant by “chance”. Most of the responses just emphasised how unlikely the outcome would be if the coins were tossed independently – something which no one disputes. Mark Frank_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

Mr Matzke appears disingenuous. If someone bet him $1,000 that they could toss five hundred quarters in the air and they would all land on tails, (and there was no rigging or trickery involved, etc) I doubt Mr Matzke would reject the wager because he thought the odds were 50/50.Blue_Savannah_{December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

The "chi square" test, which sixthbook #31 aptly proposed, is technically the standard approach of statistics for problems like this. Who refutes such test is simply out of science. Not that I am surprised, because I wrote in another thread that evolutionists by denying ID, at the very end, deny the hard sciences (math/physics...), and probability/statistics belong to math.niwrad_{December 16, 2013
December
12
Dec
16
16
2013
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon writes
Nck, I have been watching you with embarrassment. You have been trying desparately to evade a simple answer to a simple question. I have been embarrassed for you while you and your compadres have donned red noses, size 22 shoes and clanged cymbals between your knees. All in an effort to not concede one millimeter of ground to anyone who carries the slightest scent of ID sympathy.
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.Barry Arrington_{December 16, 2013
December
12
Dec
16
16
2013
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply