Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: evaluating hypotheses, etc.
Message-ID: <1770@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 16:44:37 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1770
Posted: Mon Dec 10 16:44:37 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:22:59 EST
References: <541@wucs.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 50

In article <541@wucs.UUCP> esk@wucs.UUCP writes:
>> The problem I see with trying to extrapolate from current experience 
>> is that we have an explanation which says "This event represents 
>> interference with natural law, AND all other reports of such events are 
>> false", 
>
>Well, I see lots of explanations that say that about their favorite 
>event.  In the absence of differences in evidence (eyewitness testimony
>etc.), it would seem rational to accord them all equal probability.  If
>there are N such claims, all inconsistent, this sets an upper limit on
>the probability of any one of them at 1/N.

Well, you can assign such probability, but it means nothing.  At most one
of them is already true.

>> ... I will deny that you can decide this claim scientifically;...
>
>I'm not convinced.  Can't we evaluate the evidence (eyewitness 
>testimony, etc.) scientifically, and then, accounting for any 
>differences in it, apply the probabilistic reasoning above?

Because part of the claim is that one of the assumptions of science is
invalidated.  One can't show that an assumption of science is true using
science.

>> To [demonstrate that there are interruptions in nature's conformity
>> to natural law] would require that the interruptions did themselves
>> have a pattern, and thus would evidence not for interrruptions,
>> but for a higher order law of nature. 
>
>But why do you insist on non-patternedness?  Must there be no method
>to divine madness?  You know, I think the "assumption of the 
>uniformity of nature" is a direct consequence of (philosophical)
>realism; to wit, if things have real properties, those properties
>would seem to determine what events can follow what.  If something
>is real in this sense, it seems to me it would possible to predict
>its activity if we knew its properties.  Now, if this applied to
>your God, He wouldn't fit your definition of the supernatural, but
>-- so what?

O.k., let me explain why I might expect apparent patternlessness.  If God is
sufficently powerful to grasp what is happening with every thought of every
human being throughout time (and we do seem to be claiming this), then we
would tend to expect that his actions would reflect a pattern which would
be too complex to be understood, and therefore would not be recognized as
pattern at all.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.