IDiotic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2016, 07:48 AM
RE: IDiotic
(22-10-2016 04:00 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  I have never seen that "definition" of random in the context of science, do you have examples that demonstrates this? I ask because of my interest in "special" uses of words and how these confuse communication and understanding in others.

Otherwise this bit of the Google definition of "random" seems to suit this context nicely:
Quote:made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.

This from Reddit: "Let's say you're rolling two dice. The chance of getting 2 is much smaller than getting 7. To get 2, each die has to turn up 1, but to get 7, you can do 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, or 6+1. But, each roll is random—getting a 2 on your first roll doesn't change the chance of getting a 2 the second roll. There's no pattern going from roll to roll, they're independent events."

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 09:35 AM
RE: IDiotic
(22-10-2016 07:48 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(22-10-2016 04:00 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  I have never seen that "definition" of random in the context of science, do you have examples that demonstrates this? I ask because of my interest in "special" uses of words and how these confuse communication and understanding in others.

Otherwise this bit of the Google definition of "random" seems to suit this context nicely:

This from Reddit: "Let's say you're rolling two dice. The chance of getting 2 is much smaller than getting 7. To get 2, each die has to turn up 1, but to get 7, you can do 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, or 6+1. But, each roll is random—getting a 2 on your first roll doesn't change the chance of getting a 2 the second roll. There's no pattern going from roll to roll, they're independent events."

OK, SYZ, did that years ago, but that, to me is regular randomness So there are, unpredictable outcomes from any roll. Where does "various" get in on the act?

Any number of rolls are "variations" on a theme, two little cubes will display x number of spots. To my mind a "variation" is descriptive of deviance from a common line that two or more other things follow.

But, then, I have always been anti unecessary variance from basic meaning in language use! Managed to get a pass in my college sociology module using only two jargon words in the entire thing. Had to use about ten in psychology...

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: IDiotic
(22-10-2016 04:00 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(21-10-2016 03:50 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  IDers display an incredible ignorance of the meaning of the word "random" (or, perhaps, it's dishonesty). In the context in which science uses it, "random" means "various". It has nothing to do with chance occurrences. In fact, the random variations which occur in nature are caused mechanistically. Thus the claim that naturalistic science must base itself on chance occurrences is totally ridiculous (whether it is born out of ignorance or dishonesty).

I have never seen that "definition" of random in the context of science, do you have examples that demonstrates this? I ask because of my interest in "special" uses of words and how these confuse communication and understanding in others.

Otherwise this bit of the Google definition of "random" seems to suit this context nicely:

Quote:made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.

Thus the whole natural world is "random"!

(Unless instinctive behaviour is considered "method" Smile )

(Have just realised that this also means Jackson Pollock's work is a combination of method and pseudo-randomness! Still think it's Bollocks though.)

An example is the numbers picked by a hopper for a lottery. They appear to be random, but that is only because we we do not have the ability to predict which numbers will come up. If it were possible to know all the variables involved (the initial position of every ball, the size and weight of every ball, the air pressures, every physical law involved in the behavior of the balls, etc., we could predict with 100% accuracy, the outcome of the drawing. These factors are iron-clad facts and rules which would determine the out come. But, since it is impossible (practically) for us to know all these factors, we settle for calling the selection of numbers, random.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 10:51 AM
RE: IDiotic
(22-10-2016 10:21 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  
(22-10-2016 04:00 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  I have never seen that "definition" of random in the context of science, do you have examples that demonstrates this? I ask because of my interest in "special" uses of words and how these confuse communication and understanding in others.

Otherwise this bit of the Google definition of "random" seems to suit this context nicely:


Thus the whole natural world is "random"!

(Unless instinctive behaviour is considered "method" Smile )

(Have just realised that this also means Jackson Pollock's work is a combination of method and pseudo-randomness! Still think it's Bollocks though.)

An example is the numbers picked by a hopper for a lottery. They appear to be random, but that is only because we we do not have the ability to predict which numbers will come up. If it were possible to know all the variables involved (the initial position of every ball, the size and weight of every ball, the air pressures, every physical law involved in the behavior of the balls, etc., we could predict with 100% accuracy, the outcome of the drawing. These factors are iron-clad facts and rules which would determine the out come. But, since it is impossible (practically) for us to know all these factors, we settle for calling the selection of numbers, random.

Yup, understand all that, had 60 odd years to play mind games woth those sort of thing. I used Pollocks work, then I realised that if you could determine, control, the trajectory of every drop of paint his work could then as artistic as daubing it on with a paint brush. I use "artistic" in the technical not the aesthetic sense.

For me, ignoring the sometimes necessary "pseudo-" prefix, any uncontrollable, unpredictable, undiagnosable production of a number, mutation, variation, pattern or whatever, will always be "random". Then, since I do not often have discussions with pedantic mathematicians (thank goodness!) I don't have to worry too much Big Grin

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
08-01-2017, 05:55 PM
RE: IDiotic
(22-09-2016 08:27 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(22-09-2016 03:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ID doesn't make predictions. All is does, all it has ever done, is be a negative proposition. "If evolutionary theory cannot explain it, then it was designed."


- An intelligent designer might come up with some of the more horrific parasites that lurk the natural world but it leaves one really questioning His nature. Hard to be All Loving and the Creator of the Ichneumon wasp.

http://dailyparasite.blogspot.com/

Parasite Of The Day

Who designed all these bizarre parasites anyway?

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2017, 02:12 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2017 02:23 AM by Glossophile.)
RE: IDiotic
Do you remember those old cartoons where the screwball animal (usually Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck) disguises himself as a woman and flirts with his foil, who's pursuing him for whatever reason? Of course, the disguise never fools anyone in the audience, but the foil is totally smitten.

Creationism = screwball animal
Intelligent Design = flimsy woman costume
Foil in Pursuit = an all-too-sizable proportion of the populace
Audience = atheists/skeptics/secularists

Speaking of cartoons, I heard on a YouTube video that there was some article on Conservapedia claiming that Noah's animals got to their post-flood locations by sitting on a volcano and letting the eruption catapult them there. I'm a bit skeptical that it was really quite that stupid, but in any case, I immediately cracked up laughing! Even Bugs Bunny would look at the YEC's physics and go, "Eh, I don't think that's quite gonna work, doc." Even if it was an exaggeration, it wouldn't be the first cartoony thing these people believed. The image that sprung to mind was of a random creature being launched off the side of a cartoonish volcano, screaming like Goofy ("AAAHHH-HOO-HOO-HOO-HEEEEE!") as it sailed through the air. Also, we like to remind YECs that, even assuming the menagerie survived the flood, they'd have nothing left to eat afterwards. Well, I suppose the coyotes would've been doubly screwed, because even if they managed to find the roadrunners, the Acme Corporation wouldn't exist for about another 4000 years.

Anyway, in all seriousness, I think the biggest problem with creationism/ID is its unfalsifiability, at least if you're willing to play fast and loose with what qualifies as "intelligent" design. We can definitely point out all the instances where the creator would've flunked engineering school, but there is no observation that we could make to which the proponent couldn't say, "Well, it may not seem very smart to us, but the cosmic designer's wisdom is far beyond ours, so he must have a reason that we just can't see yet." In short, like biologist Ken Miller pointed out, the ID proponent can always say, "That's just how the designer made it." Ironically, though, in arguing that our limited understanding relative to the creator's only makes the creator's designs appear so ill-conceived while belying some hidden genius, the already thin disguise becomes even thinner. They're basically saying the designer "works in mysterious ways," just like, oh, I don't know,...God!

But no, ID isn't theism. Not at all! It's a scientific theory. They never said the G-word. Dodgy

The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2017, 02:57 AM
RE: IDiotic
I saw the title and was instantly reminded of the I D 10 T error in computer users >.>

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
24-03-2017, 07:14 AM
RE: IDiotic
(24-03-2017 02:57 AM)JesseB Wrote:  I saw the title and was instantly reminded of the I D 10 T error in computer users >.>

We used to call that the "chair-to-keyboard interface" Laugh out load

Having problems with your computer? Visit the Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OakTree500's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: