http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... highlight=
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.Turgonian:
If random chance governs (as naturalists assert), the chance calculation is valid.
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.