RE: [asa] Explanatory filter

The bat on its end was a timely example for me of just how probabilities are misunderstood and misused. I had just been working on a SS lesson on providence and had included the following excerpt from the CBN network promoting a recent video about supposed miracles that happened on 911. Here is just a bit of that:

"John Todd, executive producer, says "Miracles in Our Midst tells the story of just a few of the thousands of miracles that occurred at Ground Zero that day—miracles of survival when all odds were against it. These amazing stories of survival, where there is no scientific explanation, clearly show where science stops and God begins."
"The hundreds of stories of survival on that day are evidence that a greater number of miracles probably occurred on September 11 than on any other recorded day in our history," says David W. Balsiger, senior producer of the documentary. "I challenge anyone to remain unmoved by these stories of heroic sacrifice, divine intervention and demonstrated heartwarming humanity."

Here we find that miracle is being defined as "when all odds were against it" or when there is "no scientific explanation." So if the odds are against the bat coming up on its end does that then mean that we should call upon supernatural intervention. Just how badly do the odds have to be against something before one can claim that God has intervened? This use of probabilities just makes no sense. In 911 the odds were actually pretty good that of the thousands in the building that some would actually survive even under the incredible conditions. Just like the odds that some bat at some point will end up balancing on its end given the number of opportunities over time. I raised the question, why is it that only those that were saved against all odds seem to be the only ones that qualify for miraculous intervention? If God can intervene (I don't like the word but it gets the idea across) to save a person from harm why should we not believe that God doesn't intervene to!
  cause a person that could have survived by ordinary providential means to die. By doing so he might set into effect a chain of events that leads to many good things. I'm sure there have been Christians for which the odds of death at a particular point in time were very small but I doubt that the CBN team would claim that those peculiar deaths were the result of divine intervention.

Joel

________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck [dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 10:32 PM
To: Randy Isaac
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Explanatory filter

Randy, I thought that's where you were going. So the point is that a highly improbable event can happen; saying something is highly improbable doesn't rule out that it in fact happened. Thus, even if Dembski et al are right and evolution without design is highly improbable, nevertheless it happened.

I don't think this is a terribly strong illustration. No one, so far as I know, denies that highly improbable events can happen -- everyone knows "improbable" doesn't mean "impossible." The issue is what we can infer as likely from what we actually know. We were able to confirm that the improbable event shown in that video actually happened because there were eyewitnesses to the event and people created contemporary records of that testimony. We therefore have direct evidence, not only circumstantial evidence, of the event. If we had no such direct evidence, it would be entirely reasonable for someone to argue that the event probably didn't actually happen as apparently depicted in the video. At the very least, we wouldn't rule out a priori the possibility that the video was staged. Without more, the improbability of the event would at least leave the range of reasonable inferences to be drawn from the video open.

Of course, we have no eyewitnesses to the entire history of evolution (yes, I know, we can witness evolution in nature today, but obviously not on the grand scale of the entire evolutionary process). This isn't to raise some false questions about the legitimacy of historical sciences, but it does, IMHO, render the range of inferences that can be drawn from probabilities concerning the history of life more open than the range of inferences that can be drawn about an improbable event as to which there is testimony from contemporaneous witnesses.

If you think about it, we reason this way all the time in everyday life. There are lots of possible explanations for things I observe that I discard for practical purposes because they are so highly improbable. Yes, it's possible that someone poisoned the Tylenol I'm about to take, but it's so improbable that I discard it as a working hypothesis. The fact that Prado's bat really performed that unlikely feat doesn't cause me to hesitate about the long tails on the probability curve concerning my Tylenol one bit.

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net<mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net>> wrote:
Yes, Steve, you identified it correctly. It really did happen. There are a lot of fixed cameras in addition to the manned ones. When I was a boy playing baseball the ends of the bats were convex instead of concave so it would have been even less probable.

I just thought this was an interesting object lesson about how we normally react when we encounter an extremely rare event. Probabilities are hard to quantify. Now, if only someone had specified this complex occurence ahead of time instead of commenting on it afterwards...

Randy

----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Matheson" <smatheso@calvin.edu<mailto:smatheso@calvin.edu>>
To: <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 12:37 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] Explanatory filter

The batter was Martin Prado of the Atlanta Braves. The improbable event occurred in a game with the Mets in September of 2007. Discussion at the time centered on neither peculiar camera angles nor invisible strings, but on whether Prado's bat was oddly weighted. Personally, I think it's just an improbable event, sort of like an evangelical employing critical thought. I've ruled out chicanery, at least because that really is Keith Hernandez' voice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart%C3%ADn_Prado

Steve Matheson

"Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net<mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net>> 05/25/08 10:13 PM >>>
How would we apply the explanatory filter to this video? Can we determine by probabilities whether it was edited? Or designed?

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1775904

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

--
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.