Re my first crude attempt at estimating the probability of three Michaels being the first posters on a particular topic, and Annette's pointing out caveats, I failed to take into account the frequency with which individual TIPSters make contributions. One Michael in particular is without doubt the most prolific in this regard! Still, that it was specifically on the topic of *synchronicity* that three Michaels were the first posters must lengthen the odds.
Paul Brandon wrote: >But how many potential low probability coincidences were >there that could have occurred? The probability of some >low probability event occurring is high! Good point! Though (generalising), if a certain event is of *very* low probability, the probability of some equally low probability event occurring may be appreciable, but not necessarily high. But this is all getting too much for me! On 12 September 2008 Chris Green, noting that scientific modes of thought have historically not been exclusively "Western", wrote [snip]: >In short, the "scientific" mindset doesn't seem to be geographical. >It appears to be a small minority of people, potentially anywhere >at any time. The question is whether that minority happens to be >"in" or "out" of political power at a particular moment. And Mike Smith wrote: >Wouldn't it be most people don't embrace the scientific method >as a way of knowing since there are far more people with an >eastern mindset (or a faith based one) than people with a western >scientific mindset? Aren't people who hold a physicalistic scientific >worldview still in the minority (and will probably to remain so)? I agree that it is only a smallish minority who apply scientific methodology rigorously, I would say that from early in the twentieth century the majority of the population in much of Europe (certainly western Europe) has accepted scientific modes of thought, e.g., as appropriate for the relevant parts of the education curriculum - in other words, "science" has been generally accepted as the appropriate approach for comprehending the material world. And surely it is also a question of whether scientific methodology has thrived, regardless of the mindset of the majority of the population. In this sense, scientific methodology has thrived for several centuries in Western Europe, as it is has for some time thrived in Japan, and now increasingly in India and China. Mike Smith wrote [snip]: >I disagree with Chris' assertion that the question is whether the >scientific minority are or are not in political power at the time. I agree. It's not a question of whether the scientific minority as such are "in power" - the great majority of those holding political power in western Europe have not been scientists, but they have for some time accepted science as an essential part of modern society. And going back a few centuries, it seems to me that, e.g., in England and France, science thrived (in fits and starts) regardless of the attitudes of those holding political power. >What if a scientific minority were in political power (let's say >in the US)? What would it do? Legislate against belief in God? >Forced education that God doesn't exist? Take away the children >of people with a faith based worldview? (I think Dawkins would >if he could-thank God he doesn't have any political power!) >Regardless, even totalitarian regimes cannot necessarily change >people's attitudes and beliefs (I think history is probably replete >with examples). But, for a couple of examples, Christianity is still >alive in China (and Russia) despite systematic attempts to eliminate >it (and Fulan Gong is still kicking). Why does the thought of a hornet's nest come to mind on reading this. :-) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
