Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16

# Don't confuce unlikely with fact

 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AMPosted: 3 years agoDon't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.
 Posts: 11,322 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 2:26:34 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.Anything is possible by our Creator, even the illusion of good and evil.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 2:30:17 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 2:26:34 AM, bornofgod wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.Anything is possible by our Creator, even the illusion of good and evil.Yes but saying it is possible, does not confirm God did it, either.
 Posts: 11,322 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 2:34:38 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 2:30:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:26:34 AM, bornofgod wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.Anything is possible by our Creator, even the illusion of good and evil.Yes but saying it is possible, does not confirm God did it, either.We only have one Creator and we all exist within His thoughts.Psalm 925: How great are thy works, O LORD! Thy thoughts are very deep!6: The dull man cannot know, the stupid cannot understand this:Psalm 13917: How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!Psalm 947: and they say, "The LORD does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive."8: Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?9: He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?10: He who chastens the nations, does he not chastise? He who teaches men knowledge,11: the LORD, knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.Genesis 27: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.We are the thoughts of God.
 Posts: 2,877 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 2:48:32 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 2:30:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:26:34 AM, bornofgod wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.Anything is possible by our Creator, even the illusion of good and evil.Yes but saying it is possible, does not confirm God did it, either.I agree.
 Posts: 9,788 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 3:47:24 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.And how did you come to your conclusion that using induction is not a guarantee of acquiring knowledge? It wasn't by using induction by any chance?Fu-Ming: "So explain to us how wasps look like wasps 100 million years later. I'll wait". Me: What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait. Fu-Ming: *crickets*
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 3:57:33 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 2:48:32 AM, JJ50 wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:30:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:26:34 AM, bornofgod wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.Anything is possible by our Creator, even the illusion of good and evil.Yes but saying it is possible, does not confirm God did it, either.I agree.It doesn't mean God didn't do it either. I think possibility is the first thing to discern when making a decision. And certainly, if history is any judge, what was once said to be impossible is being found out to be possible.Ultimately I'm saying people are using probabilities to confirm what they already think, instead of using what probability really was intended for. As a prediction tool. it is to measure the occurrence of uncertain events.I also make a distinction between plausible and possible. Plausible being not just possible but likely. However that's just me. The original sense of the word probable was a reasonably held opinion.Ultimately what I wanted to point out is a great use of the Prosecutor's fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org...I try not to make arguments about the possibility of life emerging from non-living for this very reason.While some seem to think a low possibility means it is not likely to happen, but in fact all it means is it is not likely to happen often. Seems to be applied hypocritically. More than likely guilty as charged myself on some occasion. Someone will reject and claim a "virgin birth" is false due to low possibility or never having seen one.But life emerging from non-living is an even lower possibility by modest measures and has never been observed either.Other cases come to mind but I bring these up to illustrate a point.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 4:03:27 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 3:47:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.And how did you come to your conclusion that using induction is not a guarantee of acquiring knowledge? It wasn't by using induction by any chance?Is modal logic a type of inductive reasoning? I think not.The scientific method is not the only scientific method I know of. Nor is it the only inductive reasoning I know of, nor is it the only type of reasoning I know of.
 Posts: 9,788 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 4:48:24 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 4:03:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 3:47:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.And how did you come to your conclusion that using induction is not a guarantee of acquiring knowledge? It wasn't by using induction by any chance?Is modal logic a type of inductive reasoning? I think not.I saw no use of modal operators in your OP. Perhaps you can explain how you used modal logic to arrive at your conclusion. For our enlightenment.The scientific method is not the only scientific method I know of. Nor is it the only inductive reasoning I know of, nor is it the only type of reasoning I know of.I never mentioned the scientific method. I merely asked what logical method you had used to arrive at your conclusion. It obviously wasn't deduction, so what was it?I also want you to clarify what you meant by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion". Casinos use probability all the time. Their systems such as the roulette wheel are mathematically fixed and not heuristic I can assure you. They rarely lose money. I would call the money making ability of casinos a reasonable conclusion based on probabilities. What about you?Fu-Ming: "So explain to us how wasps look like wasps 100 million years later. I'll wait". Me: What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait. Fu-Ming: *crickets*
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 5:05:03 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 4:48:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 4:03:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 3:47:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.And how did you come to your conclusion that using induction is not a guarantee of acquiring knowledge? It wasn't by using induction by any chance?Is modal logic a type of inductive reasoning? I think not.The Problem of Induction can be arrived at by modal logic. Because it is addressing how true the conclusion can be from the premises by possibilities. Off the top of my head I'll attempt to define it so.observation^1 has properties^1 therefore observation^n necessarily has properties^nModal logic says this can be written as:observation^n not possible to not have properties^nbut it is possible for observation^x to not have properties^x hence therefore Induction is not necessarily true all the time.Well a day, I think I could write that a lot more formally.I saw no use of modal operators in your OP. Perhaps you can explain how you used modal logic to arrive at your conclusion. For our enlightenment.The scientific method is not the only scientific method I know of. Nor is it the only inductive reasoning I know of, nor is it the only type of reasoning I know of.I never mentioned the scientific method. I merely asked what logical method you had used to arrive at your conclusion. It obviously wasn't deduction, so what was it?I also want you to clarify what you meant by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion". Casinos use probability all the time. Their systems such as the roulette wheel are mathematically fixed and not heuristic I can assure you. They rarely lose money. I would call the money making ability of casinos a reasonable conclusion based on probabilities. What about you?I would call the money making of casinos based on the rule of large numbers. What I mean by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion" is that in the discerning of one event. Possibility can only say the frequency with which the event will occur. Not whether the event has occurred or not. Such as "did not happen" would need more evidence.
 Posts: 2,446 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 7:27:15 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.Coming from the guy that says that Chance cannot account for the fine tuning because of its low probability...#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica #WarOnDDO
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 2:25:36 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 7:27:15 AM, SNP1 wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.Coming from the guy that says that Chance cannot account for the fine tuning because of its low probability...I said I probably have been guilty of it, there's a low chance I have made this error.But I think I was explaining how the odds are calculated for a possible universe. Favorable outcomes divided by all possible outcomes.A series of low probability events strung together becomes for a lot of people divine intervention.
 Posts: 9,788 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 9:55:58 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 5:05:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 4:48:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 4:03:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 3:47:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.And how did you come to your conclusion that using induction is not a guarantee of acquiring knowledge? It wasn't by using induction by any chance?Is modal logic a type of inductive reasoning? I think not.The Problem of Induction can be arrived at by modal logic. Because it is addressing how true the conclusion can be from the premises by possibilities. Off the top of my head I'll attempt to define it so.observation^1 has properties^1 therefore observation^n necessarily has properties^nModal logic says this can be written as:observation^n not possible to not have properties^nbut it is possible for observation^x to not have properties^x hence therefore Induction is not necessarily true all the time.Well a day, I think I could write that a lot more formally.Lol. Don't bother. This means nothing to me. I'll take your word for it.I saw no use of modal operators in your OP. Perhaps you can explain how you used modal logic to arrive at your conclusion. For our enlightenment.The scientific method is not the only scientific method I know of. Nor is it the only inductive reasoning I know of, nor is it the only type of reasoning I know of.I never mentioned the scientific method. I merely asked what logical method you had used to arrive at your conclusion. It obviously wasn't deduction, so what was it?I also want you to clarify what you meant by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion". Casinos use probability all the time. Their systems such as the roulette wheel are mathematically fixed and not heuristic I can assure you. They rarely lose money. I would call the money making ability of casinos a reasonable conclusion based on probabilities. What about you?I would call the money making of casinos based on the rule of large numbers.I don't know what "rule of large numbers" is but if you mean that it is based on the house edge over the long-term (many iterations of game play), then I agree.What I mean by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion" is that in the discerning of one event.I'm afraid that makes no sense. You can only talk about heuristics in relation to using experience of past events to make some kind of educated guess about solving a problem. But here you say you are only concerned about a single event with no history behind it. Where does heuristic come into it?Possibility can only say the frequency with which the event will occur. Not whether the event has occurred or not. Such as "did not happen" would need more evidence.I'm sorry, you lost me. I have no idea what you are referring to.Fu-Ming: "So explain to us how wasps look like wasps 100 million years later. I'll wait". Me: What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait. Fu-Ming: *crickets*
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 10:11:23 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 9:55:58 PM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 5:05:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 4:48:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 4:03:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 3:47:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.And how did you come to your conclusion that using induction is not a guarantee of acquiring knowledge? It wasn't by using induction by any chance?Is modal logic a type of inductive reasoning? I think not.The Problem of Induction can be arrived at by modal logic. Because it is addressing how true the conclusion can be from the premises by possibilities. Off the top of my head I'll attempt to define it so.observation^1 has properties^1 therefore observation^n necessarily has properties^nModal logic says this can be written as:observation^n not possible to not have properties^nbut it is possible for observation^x to not have properties^x hence therefore Induction is not necessarily true all the time.Well a day, I think I could write that a lot more formally.Lol. Don't bother. This means nothing to me. I'll take your word for it.I saw no use of modal operators in your OP. Perhaps you can explain how you used modal logic to arrive at your conclusion. For our enlightenment.The scientific method is not the only scientific method I know of. Nor is it the only inductive reasoning I know of, nor is it the only type of reasoning I know of.I never mentioned the scientific method. I merely asked what logical method you had used to arrive at your conclusion. It obviously wasn't deduction, so what was it?I also want you to clarify what you meant by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion". Casinos use probability all the time. Their systems such as the roulette wheel are mathematically fixed and not heuristic I can assure you. They rarely lose money. I would call the money making ability of casinos a reasonable conclusion based on probabilities. What about you?I would call the money making of casinos based on the rule of large numbers.I don't know what "rule of large numbers" is but if you mean that it is based on the house edge over the long-term (many iterations of game play), then I agree.What I mean by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion" is that in the discerning of one event.I'm afraid that makes no sense. You can only talk about heuristics in relation to using experience of past events to make some kind of educated guess about solving a problem. But here you say you are only concerned about a single event with no history behind it. Where does heuristic come into it?Possibility can only say the frequency with which the event will occur. Not whether the event has occurred or not. Such as "did not happen" would need more evidence.I'm sorry, you lost me. I have no idea what you are referring to.If there is a possibility of something happening. And it is extremely low. You can't not look at an historical account and conclude that the event did not happen.Say we look at every account of SIDs and say the odds of a baby dieing by itself are so low, the mother is guilty of murder. And we do this for every case we find a dead body. We know some of those cases must be false prosecutions.The low probability of the event can not be used as evidence that it "did not" occur. Just that it's occurrence should not be frequent.Such a fallacy is called Prosecutor's Fallacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org...So possibility alone is an heuristic in making a quick judgement call, but not conclusive enough alone for any conclusion.
 Posts: 9,788 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/11/2015 11:24:18 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 10:11:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 9:55:58 PM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 5:05:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 4:48:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 4:03:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 3:47:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.And how did you come to your conclusion that using induction is not a guarantee of acquiring knowledge? It wasn't by using induction by any chance?Is modal logic a type of inductive reasoning? I think not.The Problem of Induction can be arrived at by modal logic. Because it is addressing how true the conclusion can be from the premises by possibilities. Off the top of my head I'll attempt to define it so.observation^1 has properties^1 therefore observation^n necessarily has properties^nModal logic says this can be written as:observation^n not possible to not have properties^nbut it is possible for observation^x to not have properties^x hence therefore Induction is not necessarily true all the time.Well a day, I think I could write that a lot more formally.Lol. Don't bother. This means nothing to me. I'll take your word for it.I saw no use of modal operators in your OP. Perhaps you can explain how you used modal logic to arrive at your conclusion. For our enlightenment.The scientific method is not the only scientific method I know of. Nor is it the only inductive reasoning I know of, nor is it the only type of reasoning I know of.I never mentioned the scientific method. I merely asked what logical method you had used to arrive at your conclusion. It obviously wasn't deduction, so what was it?I also want you to clarify what you meant by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion". Casinos use probability all the time. Their systems such as the roulette wheel are mathematically fixed and not heuristic I can assure you. They rarely lose money. I would call the money making ability of casinos a reasonable conclusion based on probabilities. What about you?I would call the money making of casinos based on the rule of large numbers.I don't know what "rule of large numbers" is but if you mean that it is based on the house edge over the long-term (many iterations of game play), then I agree.What I mean by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion" is that in the discerning of one event.I'm afraid that makes no sense. You can only talk about heuristics in relation to using experience of past events to make some kind of educated guess about solving a problem. But here you say you are only concerned about a single event with no history behind it. Where does heuristic come into it?Possibility can only say the frequency with which the event will occur. Not whether the event has occurred or not. Such as "did not happen" would need more evidence.I'm sorry, you lost me. I have no idea what you are referring to.If there is a possibility of something happening. And it is extremely low. You can't not look at an historical account and conclude that the event did not happen.Say we look at every account of SIDs and say the odds of a baby dieing by itself are so low, the mother is guilty of murder. And we do this for every case we find a dead body. We know some of those cases must be false prosecutions.The low probability of the event can not be used as evidence that it "did not" occur. Just that it's occurrence should not be frequent.Such a fallacy is called Prosecutor's Fallacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org...So possibility alone is an heuristic in making a quick judgement call, but not conclusive enough alone for any conclusion.Fair enough. Is this to bolster your argument about a natural virgin birth being possible?Fu-Ming: "So explain to us how wasps look like wasps 100 million years later. I'll wait". Me: What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait. Fu-Ming: *crickets*
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/12/2015 12:05:00 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/11/2015 11:24:18 PM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 10:11:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 9:55:58 PM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 5:05:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 4:48:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 4:03:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 1/11/2015 3:47:24 AM, dee-em wrote:At 1/11/2015 2:05:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:Don't confuse unlikely or low possibility with fact that it did not happen.This is actually the problem with induction.http://en.wikipedia.org...And why decision making is not a purely inductive, scientific method.When it comes to making decisions about what to accept as true or false, one should always remember doubt is present and have justification for over coming that doubt. Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion.And how did you come to your conclusion that using induction is not a guarantee of acquiring knowledge? It wasn't by using induction by any chance?Is modal logic a type of inductive reasoning? I think not.The Problem of Induction can be arrived at by modal logic. Because it is addressing how true the conclusion can be from the premises by possibilities. Off the top of my head I'll attempt to define it so.observation^1 has properties^1 therefore observation^n necessarily has properties^nModal logic says this can be written as:observation^n not possible to not have properties^nbut it is possible for observation^x to not have properties^x hence therefore Induction is not necessarily true all the time.Well a day, I think I could write that a lot more formally.Lol. Don't bother. This means nothing to me. I'll take your word for it.I saw no use of modal operators in your OP. Perhaps you can explain how you used modal logic to arrive at your conclusion. For our enlightenment.The scientific method is not the only scientific method I know of. Nor is it the only inductive reasoning I know of, nor is it the only type of reasoning I know of.I never mentioned the scientific method. I merely asked what logical method you had used to arrive at your conclusion. It obviously wasn't deduction, so what was it?I also want you to clarify what you meant by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion". Casinos use probability all the time. Their systems such as the roulette wheel are mathematically fixed and not heuristic I can assure you. They rarely lose money. I would call the money making ability of casinos a reasonable conclusion based on probabilities. What about you?I would call the money making of casinos based on the rule of large numbers.I don't know what "rule of large numbers" is but if you mean that it is based on the house edge over the long-term (many iterations of game play), then I agree.What I mean by "Probability alone is an heuristic and not a reasonable conclusion" is that in the discerning of one event.I'm afraid that makes no sense. You can only talk about heuristics in relation to using experience of past events to make some kind of educated guess about solving a problem. But here you say you are only concerned about a single event with no history behind it. Where does heuristic come into it?Possibility can only say the frequency with which the event will occur. Not whether the event has occurred or not. Such as "did not happen" would need more evidence.I'm sorry, you lost me. I have no idea what you are referring to.If there is a possibility of something happening. And it is extremely low. You can't not look at an historical account and conclude that the event did not happen.Say we look at every account of SIDs and say the odds of a baby dieing by itself are so low, the mother is guilty of murder. And we do this for every case we find a dead body. We know some of those cases must be false prosecutions.The low probability of the event can not be used as evidence that it "did not" occur. Just that it's occurrence should not be frequent.Such a fallacy is called Prosecutor's Fallacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org...So possibility alone is an heuristic in making a quick judgement call, but not conclusive enough alone for any conclusion.Fair enough. Is this to bolster your argument about a natural virgin birth being possible?No, but probability theorem has been on my mind lately. Just discussing logically what counts for rational