Why should something without either science or history as even a part of its object/purpose have any kind of agreement with those things that aren’t even addressed?
No, it’s a matter of literal and textual analysis to see what the message is.
You said it.
[Nothing about any sacred text can’t be explained, perfectly, fully, by coherent, warranted, justified, true belief: there is no unnatural, anachronistic fossil of transcendent Love or any lesser God.]
Who’se rules.
Richard
That’s not true.
Especially since there are forms of lottery which guarantee exactly one winner.
Then why write it?
Unless you mean that it’s obviously not true because people win the lottery, in which case all you are doing is warning people not to trust your views on probability.
Filed alongside “knit picking”.
They aren’t.
2 Likes
On the subject of unsubstantiated assertions…
Richard
Only by bending the rules.
According to probability you have as much chance of winning the lottery as being hit by a meteorite (UK Lottery).
However, as we all know that statisitc is not the whole story.
It is no different than claimiing that there is only 2% difference in DNA between humans and higher apes. The % does not tell the whole story.
Statisitcs and probability are used and manipulated to give the results or chances the best or worse impression depending on who the target is and what result is being promoted. That is the nature of the beast.
Richard
Apparently you’ve never entered a raffle.
Codswallop. Educate yourself.
It’s not even part of the story.
It is different, because that one is accurate.
Well, duh.
1 Like
I searched this article National Lottery (United Kingdom) in vain for mention of “meteor” or “meteors” and found nothing.
1 Like
Common sense. Your approach is like insisting that a mechanic use Pam on engine valves because it works so well for your pancakes to keep them from sticking.
1 Like
Those are entirely different situations. The lottery chances are bound by the parameters of the tickets and the draw; they guarantee that there will in fairly short order be a winner. In the lottery, the probability of a winner approaches 1 after just a couple of iterations; this would be the equivalent of the change of being hit by a meteor getting continually larger while you stood there – which is statistical silliness.
That’s not statistics, that Madison Avenue and its equivalents.
1 Like
I am sorry, but iti is a common saying within the UK and there is somewhere a start of it. The Internet does not always come up Trump.
(deliberate spelling error)
Last time I looked I was talking about the UK Lottery. You tried to steer it towards a guarranteed result, not me.
Bend the rules and then laim them , brilliant.
As you are not from the UK the following retort is meaningless
and as bias and false as they come. How many differences is it in figures?
Hey, watch it , you might be agreeing with me.
You do not use ommon sense. It is fallacious according to science. (So I have been told on this forum)
Admit it.
Science is trying to claim exclusive and Godly possesion of its theories and assertions, Sceince claims no other argument is allowed. Science is neither my God or my Dictator. That wall is niether real, nor impregnable.
Richard
The claim is more like
You are more likely to get hit by a meteor than win the lottery
The odds of winning the UK Lotto are 1 in 45 million (confirmed on Lottery Web site.) That is for one ticket on one draw.
The odds of being hit by a meteorite are estimated to be 1 in 700,000 . Which is actually a heck of a lot more likely yet virutally never heard of.
The pont of it is that statistically you should never win, but in reality that one chance does not have to come after 45 million times, it could come first try.
So, less of the posturing. The point is about the reliability in reality of probability, not the chances of winning in a game of chance.
Therefore
Which started this whole futile conflict!
Richard
But that’s not what the statistics shows, nor is it reality.
All of modern science rests on probability and statistics. We can’t do science without it. The medicines prescribed by your doctor were approved by government agencies based on probabilities and statistics. We base life altering decisions on probabilities, and they seem to be pretty reliable.
1 Like
I have told you a million times not to exagerate.
The knack is to know where the methodology works and doesn’t.
(which is why Binary thinking fails)
It appears some sicientists are more savvy than others in this respect.
Richard
I’m not exaggerating.
“Statisitcs and probability are used and manipulated to give the results or chances the best or worse impression depending on who the target is and what result is being promoted. That is the nature of the beast.”–RichardG
1 Like