>From: James Wetterau <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Clint & Robert on "Faith in Science"
>Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:18:32 -0400
>"Lee Daniel Crocker" says:
> > >> I know the laws of probability are real not because I BELIEVE
> > >> in it but because I CAN PROVE IT.
> > >
> > > <devil's advocacy>
> > > Ahem. I assert that you cannot prove it. Robert attacked
> > > its strongest side... What would you say to this experiment?
> > >
> > > I assert that it is completely impossible for you to flip a coin 1
> > > times and have it turn up heads every time. When I say completely
> > > impossible, I mean that it will never EVER happen, no matter how many
> > > times you try.
> > > </devil's advocacy>
> > You're being very sloppy with your language and your thinking here.
> > PROOF, as in absolute inviolable certainty, is irrelevant to reality.
> > I can't PROVE the laws of probability, but that doesn't mean I have
> > to have faith in them to make use of them. There _is_ a useful middle
> > ground--committment. I have committed thousands of dollars over the
> > years to my mastery of the laws of probability, and given the
>Well, which is it? You seem confused. First you shout out that I
>CAN PROVE IT. (Pretty sure of yourself.) Then you say, a little
>quieter, "I can't PROVE the laws of probability..." I think that
>hissing sound is your argument deflating. You say you've mastered the
>laws of probability. That's nice. How do we know they're real laws,
>not just some idea which has worked out for you?
I said "I CAN PROVE IT"
Someone else, I think Phil, wrote the weak worded reply Lee Daniel Crocker, replied telling Phil? his mistake.
I did make a reply to Phil, but in another message. I don't back out on what I said. Someone pointed out to me in this other message that I may have just found some probability model that works for me.
Are we straight on this? Check the archives.