rationalskepticism.org

Someone wrote:

Mr P wrote:

z8000783 wrote:How may people chosen at random, would you need to have a better than 50% chance that 2 of them share the same birthday?

Answer

John

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.