Ronn said: > In this particular case, while I find no fundamental fault with the > mathematical reasoning used, istm that said reasoning and the > calculations which follow are essentially meaningless in determining > the solution to the question being posed, because the assumption made > at the beginning essentially makes the result that we are interested > in determining the truth of a given.
On the contrary, what my point was that Debbi's sort of anecdotal evidence, even when supplemented by the observation that there are plenty more people like her (and you!), doesn't get to the root of the matter because there's also a quite strong effect caused by the small fraction of the population who are atheists. Looking at smart people and finding what fraction of them are atheists would not provide the experimental data required to decide between the two hypotheses: we'd also need a measurement of the total fraction of the population who are atheists. Or else, we could approach the problem by making measurements on atheists compared with the whole population. It seems to me that the very root of science is saying "Okay, given these hypotheses, we can make these predictions" and then picking experiments that distinguish hypotheses on the basis of their differing predictions. One part of that is surely to work out those predictions! Rich _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
