probability kindergarten

[angel]

This thread comes from the thread:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... highlight=

Turgonian:
If random chance governs (as naturalists assert), the chance calculation is valid.

It is devoted to prove that in many cases to know perfectly well a situation (and in particular knowing that it is rules by chance) it is definitely not enough to actually extimate the probabilities involved.

This is relevant to the kind of arguments in which people claim the probability of abiogenesis to be too low to occur. It is a fact that to the best of our current knowledge this probability is impossible to be extimated. We simply know too few about how abiogenesis occurred and the probability we should compute does in fact depend on the details of the scenario one considers. Which are unknown.

There are many examples each of which is sufficient to support the claim.
Let me start with the first coming to my mind.

Suppose Carol enters in a room and see Ann and Bill sitting at a table.
On the table there are three cards. Two of them are covered one is the two of diamonds. Bill is supposed to choose a card to find the king of diamond.

Ann says: "Hey, you won 6000times out of 10000 pics. Are you sure you are not cheating?"

Can you determine out of the data if Bill is cheating?
One has a winning frequency (60%) and should compare it with the expected winning probability to compute how likely is winning 6000 times out of 10000.

My point is that you need to know the rules of the game (i.e. the details of how the game is carried over).
Without these details one cannot answer the question.

Do you disagree? Then try and answer the question.

[Canuckster1127]

That's a sword that cuts both ways.

The calculation of chance in terms of probability can only be relevent in the context of the scope of all conditions that exist within the universe that would in fact give rise to the circumstances favorable to whatever situation or occurance taking place.

Abiogenesis is something of a canard in that:

1. It is not meaningful unless or until it can be produced in a controlled environment.

2. It is not meaningful unless or until that theoretical ocurrance can be shown to have had a reasonable probability of occuring by chance in a non-controlled environment.

3. In that context, it cannot be demonstrated that said occurance was not the effect of some further cause that goes beyond the context of material observation.

4. All that it does in that context is further beg the question in terms of first cause which still leaves unanswerable the means by which the material and conditions came to exist in the first place.

5. Until such time, if ever, that those answers can be made from a complete materialistic view, abiogenesis represents only pushing back further the primary question.

The onus rests on those seeking to eliminate God (if that is their purpose) as impossible or improbable to answer these questions to a skeptics satisfaction and I suspect by the very nature of it, that is highly improbably in and of itself to occur.

[angel]

I more or less agree (except the comments below).
For sure the burden of proof is on proponents of abiogenesis.

I agree with people claiming that there is not enough evidence in favor of abiogenesis.
However, this does not justify people claiming that abiogenesis is too unlikely to occur.

As I stated here we are discussing about these claims.

It is not meaningful unless or until it can be produced in a controlled environment.

This is too strong. Suppose I end with a detailed scenario for abiogenesis in which I can compute the probability for abiogenesis to occur.
Suppose I can prove that the probability of abiogenesis occurring in 1000 years is 0.0001% while in 100MY one has a probability of 99%.
How could you pretend to produce in controlled environment?

Still in this case I would accept evidence in favor. Wouldn't you?

If you want to say it in a different way:
in order to disprove abiogenesis (and I agreed that the burden of proof is on naturalists) one should prove that probability is low in ANY SCENARIO.

On the contrary, to support abiogenesis one should exihibit ONE SCENARIO in which abiogenesis is likely to occur.

None of the two is currntly solved.

2. It is not meaningful unless or until that theoretical ocurrance can be shown to have had a reasonable probability of occuring by chance in a non-controlled environment.

I agree...

3. In that context, it cannot be demonstrated that said occurance was not the effect of some further cause that goes beyond the context of material observation.

I agree...

4. All that it does in that context is further beg the question in terms of first cause which still leaves unanswerable the means by which the material and conditions came to exist in the first place.

This depends on the conditions to be proven. There are conditions that can be shown to occur frequently in the universe. As time is passing by we are discovering planets and we learn a lot about what is to be considered common conditions.

The first cause argument cuts the other way as well. God (not to mention the personal god of the bible) is not very likely to occur either.
Calling for non-naturalistic causes is not an explanation.

5. Until such time, if ever, that those answers can be made from a complete materialistic view, abiogenesis represents only pushing back further the primary question.

Everything is like that. In science and in Faith.

Can I suggest another way out. One can be able to observe different planets in different conditions. Each observation of a lifeless planet is a upper bound to probability of life to occur.
In the end one could collect enough evidences that abiogenesis is unlikely in the typical conditions around in the galaxy.

Of course it takes a long time, but this would be convincing I think.

[angel]

Second remark:
The probabilities of getting "merry christmas" by extracting random letters or random syllables or random bits are quite different.

Once again the probability of something to occur does in fact depend on the scenario with which we imagine that happened.

[Canuckster1127]

Angel,

Sorry to be slow on responding. Too many irons in the fire right now.

I don't think it is too strong to suggest that something on this level being produced in a controlled environment would be a strong precursor to giving it credibility as a reasonable probability in an uncontrolled one.

Of course, in the absence of such an event or occurance you're left with conjecture on both sides of the equation, as to the path followed and the context of the environment that would provide the necessary time and conditions.

That's the difference between "soft" science and "hard" science. There may be limitations in this field as to how "hard" it can be due to the huge scope of possibilities.

This falls into the field for me of not being a particularly threatening or problematic issue. I believe life was created by God, and that the organization at all levels is reflective of intelligence and design. There are elements of that belief that are not scientific and will never be demonstrated and indeed cannot be done to the scientific standards of "hard" science.

I realize that. There are steps in my thinking that involve leaps and probabilities as well.

What's interesting to me, is that in this instance, by necessity I believe, you're appealing to the same kind of rationale that Theists see in terms of the probability of such a creator or guiding intelligence. It's a decidedly "soft" approach and it speaks to the nature of the question.

I've come to realize however, that there are very few who start with science and the "how" of things that based on that come to belief in God, miracles and see the revealed presence of God in this Universe that I see so clearly.

Most accept God first in whole or at least in part and on that basis they come to believe and see how God is revealed through the process.

Abiogenesis, as I stated early, is certainly a legitimate scientific issue to examine. I think, much like evolution that it is possible that some explanation may be proffered over time and even some advances made to demonstrate in part some elements of how life relates to it's simplest physical components. How comprehensive it can ever be remains to be seen.

The motives of those looking to it as a basis in which to diminish the mystery of God or life itself is a decidedly unscientific issue.

God does not exist in the answers of "How" nor is He diminished when we make advances in this realm. God exists in the question of "Why" and to what end, and the more we know, the more it points, in my opinion to something greater than the universe itself.\

Will additional evidence from other planets contribute to the discussion? Of course.

I would not at all be surprised that life similar to us or perhaps even beyond the context of our current familiarity and understandings exists on other planets. The mere size of this universe argues for this on either side of the argument whether by chance and probability or if in the context of intelligence there being an element of waste or purposelessness in such vast resources applied without benefit (by our observation anyway.) While God certainly could have chosen to create this little planet within the context of multitudes of other galaxies and solar systems as the sole host of life, I don't have any reason to believe that that is indeed the case.

Bart