On 11/30/05, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > right. But if we want to understand what's going on, an effort should > be made to minimize the role of epistemological randomness (rather > than glorying in it, the ID perspective). There will likely be > ontological randomness remaining... > > (BTW, I prefer EGO to ID.)
----------------------------- <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002134/01/randpred.pdf> Randomness is Unpredictability ANTONY EAGLE EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD, OX1 3DP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abstract The concept of randomness has been unjustly neglected in recent philosophical literature, and when philosophers have thought about it, they have usually acquiesced in views about the concept that are fundamentally flawed. After indicating the ways in which these accounts are flawed, I propose that randomness is to be understood as a special case of the epistemic concept of the unpredictability of a process. This proposal arguably captures the intuitive desiderata for the concept of randomness; at least it should suggest that the commonly accepted accounts cannot be the whole story and more philosophical attention needs to be paid.
