The Argument from Improbability DEBUNKED



To support DEBUNKED on Patreon (thank you):

To support RATIONALITY RULES (all of my videos):

To support me through PayPal (thank you):

To visit the DEBUNKED card game website:

To follow me on Facebook:

To tweet with me on Twitter:

Timestamps:

00:00 The Argument
2:30 Black & White Fallacy
4:20 Special Pleading Fallacy
6:30 Personal Incredulity Fallacy
8:21 Approached Obliquely
10:27 Conclusion

References:

1). The Wikipedia entry on the Junkyard Tornado is concise and to the point, explaining not only the Argument from Improbability, but Hoyle’s views on abiogenesis:

2) The Wikipedia entry on the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit puts into perspective and context one of Richard Dawkins’ objections of the Argument from Improbability: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

3) Freethoughtpedia has a decent summation of the Argument from Improbability and the primary objections against it:

4) The Improbability of God, by Richard Dawkins, covers the Argument from Improbability from various angles:

5) The internet encyclopedia of philosophy’s entry on teleological argument for the existence of God covers the Argument from Improbability neatly:

6). The curious case of Roulette in which black turned up 26 times in a row in Monte Carlo, giving rise to what is now known as The Gambler’s Fallacy:

7) The Wikipedia’s entry on the Gambler’s Fallacy explains the fallacy in detail with examples:

As always, thank you kindly for taking the time to watch my content. I hope that this brief analysis of the Argument from Improbability has proven useful.

Nguồn: https://vestingpoint.com/

Xem thêm bài viết khác: https://vestingpoint.com/game/

45 thoughts on “The Argument from Improbability DEBUNKED”

  1. I think I have that exact green and gold die! I don’t remember the name but it was a full set for D&D 5e, and it came in a little potion vial 🧪 that was cool, but bad at releasing dice. I know it was the basilisk color, but I don’t remember the product name.

    Reply
  2. Really enjoyed the video, the production looks very professional, the graphics are superb and the music is great. Keep up the good work!

    Reply
  3. if you don't think solutions derived from intelligence are more probable to come up with working solutions, you should stop doing math and just roll dice

    Reply
  4. If black comes up 25 times in a row, I'd begin to suspect that the wheel is rigged, and the most likely colour to come up next would be the one that most people were betting on.

    Reply
  5. Question: christian apologists claim that jesus resurrected, because the tomb was empty and some people have seen him including the apostles. Their reason to conclude, he ressurected is that, nobody couldve stolen the body, nobody could've lied, nobody could've halucinated and so on, given that they conclude the most extraordinary explanation as we most probable since all others are unlikely. Given all that is that argument could be considered as the argument of improbability?

    Reply
  6. So first let’s address why life only has two options for origins.
    If we assume the definition of life is material biological chemistry, then any explanation for that material biological chemistry Has to either be Immaterial,
    Or random chance, because any material biological chemistry that could form material biological chemistry has no origin. And scientifically we know the material biological chemistry at least did not exist when the universe was formed after the great expansion. To assert that this is not a black-and-white option is scientifically in accurate and a example of circular reasoning…ie life began with life.

    There for randomness-unconscious emergence from natural systems(the systems of witch are immaterial Forces)organized material biological Chemical processes to form life(scientifically sound yet extremely improbable to the point of being absurd) or an Immaterial Intelligence organized material biological and chemical processes willfully(we as humans can create the building block in a lab- we are conscious therefor the only premise currently in need of explanation is a Immaterial Intelligence).

    As for the immaterial intelligence, there are historical records written of encounters with such beings. If you wish to write these offers pure superstition that’s fine but then you’re going to be conducting an argument from ignorance.

    Quotation:” if we assume the rule that improbable things are either the result of random chance or intelligent design”

    It only follows if you can demonstrate that a immaterial consciousness is improbable. This commits an argument from ignorance fallacy.

    Claiming a special pleading fallacy offer of an argument from ignorance is not very convincing.

    Reply
  7. 1. This is simply a ridiculous objection to this argument. If life was not created by random chance, then it must have been created by something on purpose, which requires a mind. Since life didn't exist, only an immaterial mind could have purposefully created life. If the creation was not purposeful, it was random. Hence, only two possibilities.

    2. We know life began to exist, and God by definition does not. We are not assuming that life had a cause because it exists, but because we know that it began to exist.

    3. There are at least 10 events which happened over the course of evolutionary history which are so unlikely, that each is not statistically likely to have ever happened on its own until the sun devours the earth. If evolution happened, it was a miracle. That's the point. Not that evoluton didn't happen

    Reply
  8. You assert that the binary of 'randomness or design' is a 'black and white fallacy' and yet with the supposed third option you provide, you invoke Darwinian evolution which itself is fundamentally driven by randomness, hence you are referencing a RESULT of randomness as an ALTERNATIVE to randomness.

    In your first video on this topic, you state that if somebody is accused of committing a black and white fallacy and in response, they request a third possibility to support such an accusation, they are committing a 'burden of proof fallacy' which is, I quote: "not how logic works". Whether or not you have abandoned this assertion, I am yet to be shown how logical deduction does not lead to the conclusion that the binary must be correct: this life-bearing universe (and therefore life and therefore us) could only be the result of one of these two options. In the legal system, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Likewise, in debates such as these, the accuser should be expected to provide evidence to support their accusation, namely in this case, by providing a third possibility for a supposed black and white fallacy, not simply stating that anything that is given as a binary must be a fallacy because there MIGHT be some other possibility despite us seemingly having no way of logically formulating one. Some things do exist as binaries.

    You go on to provide three supposed similies that are in no way similar to the 'argument from improbability': the donation to children, and the church attendance and the pyramids all of which have clear alternate possibilities, hence this appears to be a glaring case of false equivalence on not one, but three counts. The ability to detect logical fallacies is a skill best used on ourselves, not simply to belittle those with differing beliefs on topics that are far from settled. There is much more to these questions than simply throwing around labels. They require serious thought.

    Reply
  9. It’s like thinking of a deck of cards. If it’s well shuffled, then you’re probably the first person ever to see the cards in that order… there is nothing amazing about it, even though the chance that combination you just saw is infinitesimally small.

    Reply
  10. If all numbers have an equal chance of coming up.
    Then WHY have we never seen the sequence of numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 come up in lotteries?
    Just unlucky? I DON'T THINK SO!

    Reply
  11. There are a couple of things that you don't mention (although you might be implying them). One is that evolution by natural selection involves random chance but it is not random chance. It has a strong mechanism (natural selection) to select and accumulate random events (mutations) that point in one direction and discard the others. Another one is the strong difference between probability and possibility. Things with probability zero may still happen, it fact they may necessarily happen. Say that I throw a dart and let's say that it is guaranteed to land on the board and equally likely to land at any point on the board. The chance that it will land on any specific point of the board is zero (not very small, absolute zero). And still we are 100% certain that it WILL land on one of those points where it is 0% likely to land. In less extremely examples, very unlikely things are very likely to happen. Like wining the lottery. For one given person, it is extremely unlikely to win the lottery. Yet, the lottery will be won by someone. Like with your dice, any specific sequence is extremely unlikely, yet it is guaranteed that one of these highly unlikely sequence will be obtained when you rol the dice. And finally, the number of opportunities, given by the billions of years that life has been evolving and the immense number of individual organisms involved in this process. While it is unthinkable that a 747 will come out of a Tornado running over a junk yard, if you have the tornado going over the yard thousands of times per day during billions of years, and every time that the result is remotely closer to being a 747 it is conserved to keep building upon in future tornadoes and every time that the result is remotely farther from a 747 it is brought to its previous state before the next tornado, I would not be surprised if you ended up with a 747.

    Reply
  12. You also miss an important point: knowledge changes Probability. If I know that I exist than the probablitiy that I randomly evolved giving that evolution is correct, is 1. Not infinitesimal small. It is not even almost-sure. It is certain. I am, after all, created. The same holds for the Monte-Carlo casino. They knew that black had come up so often. This changes the probability that the next round comes black again. Observation and knowledge is an important factor in probability theory.

    Reply
  13. How have you not debunked systemic racism yet? lol

    I think it’s funny that all the “critical thinking, facts and logic” Youtube channels have become paralyzed with fear in 2020. lol

    Reply
  14. Halfway through I know that I will have to watch again to fully absorb all this.

    On a different matter. After watching this I know I would love to read or watch or hear 10 examples for each logical fallacy that is known.

    Reply
  15. The odds of any specific event happening become irrelevant as soon as the event in question does happen. No matter how unlikely it was, it was never impossible and it happened; that's all there is to it. Weak people can't make their lives meaningful without being the centre of the universe, so they claim the whole thing was created for our sake, which is frankly ridiculous, just like saying all of New York City was built just for the fleas on one alley cat

    Reply
  16. Like all teleological arguments, this one commits the fallacy of ignoring the anthropic principle. Regardless of its origin, you are guaranteed to observe life and guaranteed not to observe absence of life (by virtue of you being an example of life, by definition).
    The Argument from Improbability assumes that life exists with probability 1 and infers that probability of life being created by god is a complement to probability of life coming about by random chance. Here's the thing, even if life is improbable to come by random chance, that tells you jack shit about how probable it is through design. The two probabilities may add up to significantly less than 1. In fact, they are guaranteed to, because god may have simply chosen to not create life.

    Reply
  17. In Hoyle's novel, The Black Cloud, someone looks at a statistically unlikely pattern of missile strikes and asserts that they were aimed. But another character (Russian) says, “Invent bloody argument, like this. Golfer hits ball. Ball lands on tuft of grass — so. Probability ball landed on tuft very small, very very small. Million others tufts for ball to land on. Probability very small, very very very small. So golfer did not hit ball, ball deliberately guided on tuft. Is bloody argument. Yes?" And another character clarifies, “What Alexis means I think,” explained Kingsley, “is that we are not justified in supposing that there were any particular targets. The fallacy in the argument about the golfer lies in choosing a particular tuft of grass as a target, when obviously the golfer didn’t think of it in those terms before he made his shot.”
    The Russian nodded.
    “Must say what dam’ target is before shoot, not after shoot. Put shirt on before, not after event.”

    Reply
  18. Good to see you back on top form with this post. It would be interesting to see you defend your irrational stance on Brexit some time though.

    Reply

Leave a Comment