Q&A: Interpretations
Interpretations
Question
Suppose we entered a person’s house and saw on his table a bank statement
saying that he has a billion dollars in his account.
Then afterward we peeked in his diary and saw that over the last thousand days he describes that he won a million dollars in the lottery,
and on a hundred of those days (scattered around) there were also forms from the national lottery announcing a win of a million dollars.
It would make much more sense to interpret this differently, since the probability is so tiny, and say that he only means it metaphorically, that most of the time he made a good deal and earned a million dollars…
In your book you argue that evolution is something extremely improbable (a substantial part of the book is based on this),
but it happened on the basis of evidence.
I previously showed with the parable of the billionaire that evidence has to be evaluated relative to probability, and you agreed.
I am trying to argue that the evidence for the existence of evolution can be interpreted differently, and I gave an example before.
I am sure there are other ways to interpret the evidence differently as well, presumably.
See for example
The question is in the philosophy of science:
should we try to strive for other interpretations?
(If we don’t succeed, then we’ll believe in evolution… but the feeling is that nobody is even trying…)
Answer
I didn’t understand any of it. Especially not the example of the banknotes, which seems complicated to me and adds nothing to the discussion.
Discussion on Answer
First, if you propose another interpretation, I’m sure many people will consider it seriously. You’re welcome to propose one. Second, evolution in itself is not of such low probability. The laws that govern it are the wonder. (That is what I called the argument from the laws, as opposed to the argument within the laws.)
There is evidence for evolution… but presumably it can be forced and interpreted differently.
Isn’t that the straightforward thing to do, given the fact that probabilistically there is almost no chance that evolution happened [unless we say there is a designer who designed it… but again, presumably the evidence is not conclusive enough to agree to the theory].
[I gave a parable for this: when you see something that is obviously improbable, even if there is some evidence, it is preferable to bend it and force it rather than say something that is totally improbable].
See here about the possibility of rejecting some of the evidence- https://rationalbelief.org.il/%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%90%d7%aa%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%99%d7%93-%d7%94%d7%90%d7%91%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%aa%d7%a0%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%94%d7%95%d7%9b%d7%97%d7%94/