CONTEST RESUMED
Shorter reply: You summed up most of my concerns nicely. I should explain that every debate I have ever had on the topic, has turned into religion vs science, so I'm being colored by my own biased experiences. Also all the books I've read on the topic were heavily steeped in the historical record of similar such conflicts that turned ugly for the same reasons.
But I had an epiphany this morning. Since I wanted to run a contest, I should not be contributing anyway. Why should I be concerned what other people are talking about, just because I started the thread. Given this realization, your admonitions, and the Admin's's go ahead, I'll resume the contest, but keep in mind:
I'll be awarding the "prize" to the person that comes up with the best analogy to describe randomness, and why people look for and see pasterns in it, even when they are not there.
I'm upping the prize to $100 credit on my website
+ A copy of My Book
+ an on-air announcement and reading of the winning analogy
+ an optional interview with the author on my new weekly Radio Show
Please include "CONTEST SUBMISSION" at the very top, or I will assume it is a discussion, and not a contest submission. Consider "Highway to Hell" my sample submission for format. Include references if possible.
I'm going to check back at the end of the month, pick out the contest submissions and them have myself and 3 other friends of mine vote on the winner.
Please...please...please, be mindful that a large number of the people that see patterns in random events, and those that subscribe to a belief that "Everything Happens for a Reason", came to their beliefs, either through religion, or great personal tragedy. Rather than telling them why you think they are wrong, focus on explaining why you are right...and do no harm.
Look forward to checking back in at months end.
Sincerely,
Frank Kneeland
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:Frank,
> I appreciate the well-framed reply (which, because of it's length, I'll incorporate by link:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/111056)
>
> The crux of the discussion is that you assert that to engage in a thread on randomness is to invite certain allusion to religion that would violate the group guidelines, and therefore is inadvisable.
>
> I defer to your experience, but that's not at all obvious to me. In terms of pure physical mechanics, it certainly possible to describe the workings of probability and explain that while patterns will manifest themselves in play, they're purely random in their occurrence and an unreliable basis from which to predict any pattern in play going forward. There's no need to deliberately deny the involvement of an invisible hand, or any other phenomenon outside the pure mechanics.
>
> Of course, in the course of such a discussion, it's entirely possible that someone else should raise the topic of supernatural, divine, or other outside forces. If so, then the tactic is simply not to engage in those topics, noting that while there's no desire to invalidate any such beliefs, the primary topic doesn't require their involvement
>
> Don't get me wrong, my philosophies have a strong religious underpinning. I just never encountered anything at odds with my math training.
>
> In truth, Frank, in my 10+ year experience with this group, I've found few topics that can't be addressed without level headed, civil, participation -- particularly when the focus is kept to facts and opinions, while respected, should largely be sidelined. Not all such discussions go cleanly, but that's always the risk and where the moderator sits in reserve as referee.
>
