Post Pattern Makers

So in my post about the 'pattern makers'. what I was trying to get at is that humans try and find some pattern and subsequent explanation for the the things they see. In this case, what appears to be a face viewed from a certain angle on the surface of Mars. How could such a thing come into being on it's own, is the argument.

Lots and lots of arguments to discuss here. (What follows are thoughts about this kind of logic, but the thoughts are not ordered, just crap I think about. So the logic itself is random.)

1) Its only a face because humans are programmed to 'see' that pattern, along with many others. LOTS of patterns appear on celestial bodies, many of them don't fit our recognition pattern so therefore are ignored.

2) The idea that there are some astronomical (no pun intended) odds of it appearing on its own is a version of the gamblers fallacy. Post- event odds making is at work here.

Other logical fallacies that grind my beans:

1) You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery. Well, I DO play the lottery, and I also expose myself to lightning strikes, but what I don't understand is why people cross these two together. All that they have in common is that someone has worked out the math on both, based on what they felt was the appropriate criteria.

My exposure to lightning is probably a LOT higher than many people, so my odds are probably a LOT higher. On the other side, since I do play the lottery, I understand the odds, but they are astronomically higher than someone who doesn't play. Someone does win eventually. Playing the same numbers is no greater guarantee of success, and in fact studies of the numbers that do come up shows that the pattern is much more random than the people who CHOOSE their numbers would account for. Most people choose low numbers coinciding with DATES (Birthdays, anniversaries, whatever) which are always low numbers, and usually evenly distributed. In contrast. there have been multiple instances of FOUR of the SIX numbers appearing in successive drawings. What are the odds of that happening? HA. STOP post -pattern making. The drawing of the numbers this week doesn't have any knowledge of last week.

2) The theory of evolution has been postulated false by some creationist with this analogy. Life starting the way Darwin describes it is an unlikely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and creating a 747. Its called Hoyles Fallacy.

GACK. I hate this one on so many levels. First, equating a complex or simple chemical process to a purely mechanical one has so many holes I can't even begin to wade through it. Second, the 'pattern' of a 747 is recognizable to humans, not nature. Third, you can't equate a single short term event to a long term process. "No biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step". It needs INFINITE amounts of chances, which it has, through millions of years and hundreds of thousands of specimens. Fourth, an analogy is not a PROOF, nor an invalidation of a proof. To wit, the analogy of arguing in FAVOR of evolution, using the Line Analogy is just that: its an attempt to 'bridge' a gap in our understanding, not explain or prove the actual process. Lastly, and most importantly we must always remember that proving or disproving any theory of evolution or natural selection has nothing to do with proving or disproving intelligent design. We need to stop leaping and linking those unrelated arguments and proofs. One negation does not promote the other, nor does one's proof promote or negate the other.

OK, so I have diverged and gone kinda all over the Logical spectrum today. Suffice to say that all the Borels Laws you want to muster up, all the odds makers and pattern makers and seekers of reasons why we exist, the fact is WE DO. HA. Stop post- pattern making.

Lastly, I leave you with this quote, concerning probability out of natural outcomes: "If all possible outcomes of a natural process are highly improbable, then a highly improbable outcome is certain."

(Don't get me started on the lady who sold a piece of toast with Jesus' face on it. Fore more fun with fallacies and logic, read Predictably Irrational, or Sway.)