> If you flip a coin twenty times the odds that it
> will come up all heads or all tails are quite slim
> (1: 2 ^ 20). But the odds it will come up the way
> it does come up are just exactly equally slim yet
> it will come up with some result by definition.
> Certainly you wouldn’t claim it’s improbable to
> flip a coin 20 times because the odds are so poor.


What you are arguing here is that unlikely things happen. Nobody is denying that, and it has nothing to do with Jammer's argument.

When one is building a theory or a hypothesis, one should make it as likely as possible in the light of existing evidence. Jammer pointed out that very little of your fantasies are based on evidence, and therefore, when you count the product of the likelihood of the different assumptions you are making, the extreme weakness should come apparent even to you.

It sure has to everyone else a long time ago. No matter if ramps were used: the weakness of an existing theory doesn't give anyone the right to replace it with their fantasies.

Tolstoi existed, so does War and Peace. Any theory based on those is based on a certainty, likelihood of 1, no matter what the odds are of them having become into existence.



Regards,
Tommi

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
-Homer J. Simpson



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2010 03:38PM by Tommi Huhtamaki.