The story of Laura Buxton I and II

Originally posted by stellspalfie
have you ever listened to the infinite monkey cage? they did a brilliant episode on coincidence,random events and statistical odds. made me feel a bit thick, but pushed me to back into studying a bit of maths.

I have it. I could upload it so people could listen.

edit: no need ~ here it is...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc/all

Mon, 29 Nov 10, 3rd from the bottom of the page.

Fun series!

Originally posted by JS357
That's her. Them.

The story is rather dry when read about. The Radiolab report is riveting and goes into explanations of how's and why's.

The 'how' and 'why' of what? How miracles don't exist and why prophecies are never true?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you teach maths?

How many 'maths'?

Although this is an argument for a different forum. 😀

Originally posted by Suzianne
How many 'maths'?

Although this is an argument for a different forum. 😀

whats the full word for math?

Originally posted by Suzianne
The 'how' and 'why' of what? How miracles don't exist and why prophecies are never true?

No, how and why we humans infer significance when there is none. The story of Laura Buxton is used to illustrate this. At first it appears to be a hugely significant event that a balloon released by one Laura Buxton should then land in another Laura Buxton's garden 140 miles away. Much was made of the similarities between the two Lauras in the press but the differences were largely ignored as these made the event less significant. Apparently we humans are very good at inferring patterns where none exist.

I don't think prophesy was mentioned at all and miracles only in the sense of something like the Laura Buxton thing or someone winning the lottery twice seeming miraculous but actually just being the result of random chance.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
whats the full word for math?

To be fair, maths would have to be a contraction of mathematics and should therefore have an apostrophe. Math's. There, that's better.

Originally posted by Kepler
To be fair, maths would have to be a contraction of mathematics and should therefore have an apostrophe. Math's. There, that's better.

no apostrophe in the u.k. just plain old maths.

Originally posted by Kepler
No, how and why we humans infer significance when there is none. The story of Laura Buxton is used to illustrate this. At first it appears to be a hugely significant event that a balloon released by one Laura Buxton should then land in another Laura Buxton's garden 140 miles away. Much was made of the similarities between the two Lauras in the press but the d ...[text shortened]... ning the lottery twice seeming miraculous but actually just being the result of random chance.

But you don't know if it was just random chance or not. You assume the universe and humans came about by random chance, but you don't really know. You want to believe it, so that is what you ASS U ME.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But you don't know if it was just random chance or not. You assume the universe and humans came about by random chance, but you don't really know. You want to believe it, so that is what you ASS U ME.

ASS U ME? i think ASSume would have worked, but ASS U ME reads like a come-on.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
ASS U ME? i think ASSume would have worked, but ASS U ME reads like a come-on.

The idea is that if I would let you then to assume would make and ASS out of U and ME.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But you don't know if it was just random chance or not. You assume the universe and humans came about by random chance, but you don't really know. You want to believe it, so that is what you ASS U ME.

You think god made the balloon descend on a second Laura Buxton's garden? Really? As it happens, it wasn't Laura Buxton's garden, it was a neighbour, they weren't the same age, just nearly and they don't like the same stuff. Apart from two girls sharing the same name there is nothing really remarkable about the story but I suppose god has to do something to stave off the boredom of eternity.

Originally posted by Kepler
You think god made the balloon descend on a second Laura Buxton's garden? Really? As it happens, it wasn't Laura Buxton's garden, it was a neighbour, they weren't the same age, just nearly and they don't like the same stuff. Apart from two girls sharing the same name there is nothing really remarkable about the story but I suppose god has to do something to stave off the boredom of eternity.

I did not say God made anything happen, I said you don't know if it was just random chance or not. You can suppose whatever you want, but assuming doesn't make it true. The Holy Bible does not say anything about Laura Buxton's ballon so all we have is the word of the people making this report and they don't know why it happened like it did. So how can you just assume you know it all?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say God made anything happen, I said you don't know if it was just random chance or not. You can suppose whatever you want, but assuming doesn't make it true. The Holy Bible does not say anything about Laura Buxton's ballon so all we have is the word of the people making this report and they don't know why it happened like it did. So how can you just assume you know it all?

I am ignorant then I know it all? Will you make your mind up?

Originally posted by Kepler
I am ignorant then I know it all? Will you make your mind up?

You can't even understand what you read. I said you assume you know it all. That means you don't know it all. In other words, you are ignorant.

Originally posted by RJHinds to Kepler
I did not say God made anything happen, I said you don't know if it was just random chance or not. You can suppose whatever you want, but assuming doesn't make it true. The Holy Bible does not say anything about Laura Buxton's ballon so all we have is the word of the people making this report and they don't know why it happened like it did. So how can you just assume you know it all?

"...all we have is the word of the people making this report and they don't know why it happened like it did."

The "it" that they were studying was why the event seemed so remarkable to people. I think they, and some of us, know the answer. It has to do with a general human ignorance about how probabilities work, combined with human tendencies to select and exaggerate information so as to support a desired conclusion.

As you acknowledge, the young-earth creation story contradicts certain scientific beliefs about, for example, the age of the earth, and this contradiction just so happens to be important to the role and rate of genetic mutation in evolution. It is interesting that you are selecting this item of information, the age of the earth, to mention. It is as if you accept the idea that, genetic mutation rates being what they are, evolution is more plausible if Earth is very old.