[lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens Arguably on John Brown
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:57:20 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
>I could be misunderstanding, but it seems to me that probability would be
>different from coincidence.>
When I had written:-
>When we speak of a coincidence,
even a 'pure coincidence' or a 'staggering coincidence', we are all
either talking loosely or we are straying into an area that requires
understanding of probabilities and indeed the various 'philosophies' of
probability.>
This does not say that coincidence cannot be differentiated from probability
but rather that, if we are to rationally understand "coincidence", we need to
understand probabilities.
It is a coincidence that the gender of the next poster after this is the same
as mine (and it's a coincidence if it is not); but this coincidence is hardly
significant or striking given the probabilities involved. When we point out a
coincidence it is usually because we are assuming that the probabilities
involved are noteworthy: we might note that someone is wearing the exact same
rare t-shirt as us but not the coincidence that they are also wearing a t-shirt
or clothes at all. A person who utters "What a coincidence!" when finding
others in western society also wearing footwear, or having two eyes, belongs in
a discarded Monty Python sketch.
Put another way, try developing a theory or account of 'coincidences'
[including what distinguishes a remarkable from an unremarkable coincidence]
that does not involve understanding probabilities.
Donal
Coincidentally avoiding his responsibilities elsewhere
Probably
England
Other related posts:
