"Stephen Harris"  wrote 

> > I agree that the genes that are copied from one
> > generation to the next are not copied based on
> > preconcieved criteria.  (The phrases "randomly
> > picked," and "selected by random," are nonsequitors
> > that should be avoided.)
> >
> > > But the idea that two people are likely to share
> > > the same birthday at a party is coincidence
> > > generated by chance.
> >
> > I can't make sense of the phrase, "generated by
> > chance."  IMO, chance doesn't "generate," anything.
> > Chance is a concept.  Not an entity.  Only enities
> > can generate anything.
> >
> 
> It is understood by the world population that there is
> an entity or device involved in generating an outcome.

I agree.

> "generated by chance" refers to the method that an
> entity or device employs to provide the outcome.

I disagree. 

You are intermingling a subjective interpretation of 
cause and effect with an objective interpretation 
thereof.  This can only result in the same 
misconceptions that created the confusion in the 
first place.  You can only rectify the situation by 
being very deliberate about how you define such 
concepts as, selection, randomness, chance, cause, 
etc.  If you don't do this you will not be able to 
escape the gravitational pull of the gambler's 
fallacy.

> Suppose I turn up a deck of cards and select the
> ace of spades and put it in a hat. This means I have
> deliberately chosen a particular outcome.

You are falling right back into the thinking that 
underlies the Gambler's fallacy.



> The
> coincidence is said to be generated by chance and I
> am speaking of the outcomes.

Is it generated by, "chance" or is it "said" to be 
generated by chance?  Choose one.



> You are obliged to use the meanings of words that
> the rest of society uses,

What do we do in cases where there is two or three 
different meanings?  Should we not be deliberately 
definitive about which of these meanings we intend?  
Should we not be careful not to switch between 
different meanings in the middle of our argument 
so that we don't end up with concepts that are, 
in actuality, spiritualistic rather than objective, 
ie. genetic drift?

Regards,

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/27/03 11:55:36 AM