Probabilities
AutismUK@aol.com AutismUK@aol.com
Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:25:43 -0400 (EDT) (00872281543, 970822102520_-1168327111@emout07.mail.aol.com)
In a message dated 22/8/97 10:24:51, you write:
<< If three different explanations are offered for discrepancy X, then the
odds
would be three to one that discrepancy X doesn't exist, or would it be that
the odds are one in three that discrepancy X doesn't exist?. (Someone tell
me which; I don't mind if you expose my mathematical ignorance.) Now let's
suppose that of the 1,000 "alleged" discrepancies referred to above, each
one should average having three explanations that inerrantists have offered
as "explanations" that would resolve the discrepancy. If that were the
case, what would be the odds that all of the discrepancies alleged in the
Bible would have explanations that would result in total and complete
biblical inerrancy? In other words, what are the odds against the Bible's
being inerrant?
>>
If the probability of Discrepancy D being an error is x
Probability (not error) = (1-x)
Probability n discrepancies all being not error = (1-x)^n
if probability of errancy is 0.01 (e.g. 1 in 100)
given 100 problems probability of no errors is
(1-0.01)^100 = 0.99^100 = 0.366 (about 1 in 3)
over 1000 it's about 1 in 23,000
Of course, the numbers are completely meaningless (as are
the xians' of course !) because the figures are meaningless - it
is just someone's vague estimate of a probability. Because
errors in this estimate would be magnified massively the
whole thing is a nonsense - (if you make the probability 1 in 50
(0.02) then the 1000 value becomes 1 in 60 million)
If you start putting in 1 in 3 figures you get the sort of
numbers the xians talk about for probability (e.g. tending to zero)
(An xian would of course argue that the probability of errancy is
zero, which makes the probability of error in the bible zero - for a
laugh you could get one to accept a low 'sounding' probability
(say 1 in 50) and apply some sums to it !).
Paul Robson (autismuk@aol.com)