Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Rawnaeris wrote:I only have one, and it is true coincidence. My soon to be sister-in-law and I have the exact same birthday of 04/11/1988 (mm/dd/yyyy).
hackenslash wrote:I have a really amazing coincidence to tell you about! At no point in the last month has anybody phoned me while I was thinking about them! Astounding, or what?
hackenslash wrote:I am serious.
This would actually be more remarkable than the opposite in reality.
The point here is that coincidence is a really fuckwitted thing to attach any significance to.
I am absolutely deadly serious in this. Frankly, you'd be better off believing in some preposterous creator entity than this vacuous bullshit.
hackenslash wrote:Nice bit of equivocation there. Science deals with coincidences in the sense of causal relationships, not coincidences in the sense of uncanny correlations, such as you spout in your fatuous numerology bullshit. There are many, many significant coincidences in the cosmos, but the vast majority of coincidences have no significance whatsoever.
And you want to warn us about woo? I've read your posts, thanks. I think I'll stick to laughing.
hackenslash wrote:My apologies for the rudeness. Unmitigated pseudo-intellectual fucknuttery brings out the worst in me. I promise I won't be rude to the braindead fucking drivel you spout from now on. Actually, I lied. I can't help myself.
Mr P wrote:
The birthday argument perfectly illustrates that any significance attached to coincidences is purely down to our misunderstanding of statistical analysis, what significance we do attach is down to our expertise at spotting patterns in nature. These tend (on the whole) to be an accurate reflection of reality but problems can arise when we get carried away with ourselves and assign significance where none exists.
Is that what you were trying to say Hack?
z8000783 wrote:Once is happenstance
Twice is coincidence
The third time it's enemy action
Auric Goldfinger
Someone wrote:Mr P wrote:
The birthday argument perfectly illustrates that any significance attached to coincidences is purely down to our misunderstanding of statistical analysis, what significance we do attach is down to our expertise at spotting patterns in nature. These tend (on the whole) to be an accurate reflection of reality but problems can arise when we get carried away with ourselves and assign significance where none exists.
Is that what you were trying to say Hack?
This is not rational, in my opinion. I've no problem with the thrust of this statement. I've no problem with the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What I have a problem with is cliquishness in support of an argument. Your sentence isn't all that bad, aside from treating coincidences of the delusion-causing sort as something apart from coincidences of the science-supporting sort. A coincidence is what it etymologically is, not your pejorative conceptual formulation. I've bolded significant parts to me of your error, underlining the key words. You have to have an open mind to things that aren't solidly refuted.
Mr P wrote:
Before this degenerates into a semantic argument (or just cheap shots about "cliquishness")could you let us know what point you are trying to actually make?
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
Return to Paranormal & Supernatural
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest