tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post7326852749398604933..comments2024-02-29T20:00:59.902-08:00Comments on Cartago Delenda Est: Heads They Win, Tails You LoseMatteohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-70099839506741905932010-10-13T18:30:38.887-07:002010-10-13T18:30:38.887-07:00At the same time, *nothing* literally "happen...At the same time, *nothing* literally "happens by chance."<br /><br />To assert that an event "happened by chance" is literally to assert a lack of correlation between "cause" and "effect" -- that is, it is to assert that the "effect" has no cause.IlĂonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8483622.post-79679029474659437582010-10-13T13:55:01.067-07:002010-10-13T13:55:01.067-07:00I appreciate arguments from improbability, but I d...I appreciate arguments from improbability, but I do feel they're usually a form of begging the question, as the likelihood of *anything* happening is always 100% *after it happens*. If it *could* have happened by chance, then it doesn't matter how unlikely it was once it has.<br /><br />They're also prone to mismatched criteria, as the "probability" of any given event only has meaning within a defined field of time and space with room for more than one such event. When the "event" in question *is* the entire matrix within which such events have their probability-of-occurrence measured, "probability" isn't really applicable.<br /><br />Pointing out invisible-cat logic in your opponents (i.e., treating the absence of evidence for your thesis as being itself evidence for that thesis) is always worth doing, but more for the sake of moving past the "improbability" argument completely, I think.Stephen J.noreply@blogger.com