786:
That's true. Statistics requires a series or collection of events or observations that can then be analysed for patterns of randomness. Or, to look at it another way, statistics tells us what properties to expect from a number random events taken as a set.
That is an assumption that they (data-points, event) are random to begin with. This is also an assumption that something being a controlled event couldn't give the same results- which it can or at least the possibility exists. To simply assert that we can make a probability curve isn't proof enough for randomness. You can't say the probability curve associates with something "random" when in fact it can be a controlled event that can give the same result. So the assumption is premature.
There's no assumption of randomness at the beginning. As I said, we can do statistical tests for randomness.
And yes, it is possible to "fake" randomness if you're very careful. Human beings generally aren't very good at it.
That can be an effect of psuedorandomness, which can be created on a algorithm basis and thus not completely random. Also that doesn't negate the fact that the result could also match a controlled event. Both cases are unprovable or testable thus the assumption is unscientific.
Occam's razor dictates that we work with the simplest possible set of assumptions. If something passes all statistical tests of randomness, then the default position is to assume it is random unless there is actual evidence to the contrary. Postulating that God, for example, is controlling the events in such a way that they LOOK totally random, is a much more complicated set of assumptions that simply assuming that the events are actually random. In other words, God is an unnecessary hypothesis in this situation. And
that is the scientific approach.
As you have said that statistics looks at sets of data and gives a verdict of random (if it fits) to everything that entails the dataset- This is also a false assumption. It is possible also that everything was controlled to appear like "random"- but it is possible that a select few mutations were specifically caused with absolute control.
Yes, it is possible. But also not helpful from a scientific point of view. Since there's no way to prove that "God did it" in causing those few mutations, and because the mutations are consistent with the assumption of randomness, God is once again an unnecessary hypothesis.
As an explanation for evolution, what creationists need is to show that it couldn't have happened without God intervening. Asserting that God did it but in such a way that his actions are indistinguishable from randomness is no proof of God. It's just introducing an extra unnecessary assumption, and a very complex one at that.
Agreed, but again as you point out the only reason we call [a coin toss] random is because we can't predict it with the information we currently have. Nothing is to say that we can't with more info? So again the conclusion of randomness is based upon the "unknown" factor which is an untestable assumption.
All you're saying here is that the definition of randomness can depend on our state of knowledge of the system. I agree with you.
Suppose you have a hat with numbers on pieces of paper and you draw them with your eyes closed- statistics would have us believe this is random. Suppose you do that same experiment with your eyes opened and the person looking at it- this would allow the person to draw what he wants- this would be non-random.
Having the same experiment with different conditions changes a supposedly "random" experiment into a "non-random" one.
Yes. Although in your example you might ask "For whom is this a random draw?" For the person looking at what he is drawing and selecting the pieces of paper deliberately according to some plan, it is clearly not random. But for a spectator who doesn't know what the person is looking for when drawing the numbers, the draw could still very well be random for all intents and purposes. The difference is in the information available to the people - a point you made earlier.
The only reason quantum effect is not predictable even in principle is because in principle they can't have enough information to predict it. This basically follows from the Uncertainty Principle- which basically says we're limited to what we can know. Since we can't know everything "principally" anything outside would be "principally" unpredictable- this is not proof of randomness. And again this only shows that you are saying something is "random" due to the"unknown" factor. Nothing more.
In the quantum case, there are actually proofs that there cannot be any "unknown factors" that actually determine the outcome in advance. If you're interested, look up Bell's inequalities and "hidden variable theories".
Would you mind telling me properties of "random" that do not depend on the factor that something is "unknown" about the system? If something is unknown- that is the end of story- to assert it is random is unscientific at best.
Not at all. Randomness is a defined quality. We can define randomness precisely and simply, which is exactly what statistics is all about. The simply define a random series of events as a series of events that displays a certain set of statistical properties. And yes, this depends on something being unknown. For example, in the coin toss example we say the coin toss is random because we cannot know as a matter of fact in advance whether a coin will land heads or tails.
Just as Atheists accuse religions that Humans developed the idea of God to explain the "unknowns" of their time, so I claim that scientists have come up with a concept to explain their "unknowns"- if the former can't be considered an explanation then the latter can not be either.
But there are plenty of things that are unknown that cannot be explained by postulating randomness. Randomness, paradoxically, shows certain statistical patterns when you consider large enough data sets. Things that are not random but are still unknown can be clearly categorised as "unknown but definitely not random".
So, randomness is not a catch-all explanation in the same way that "God did it" is. God can be used to explain literally anything and everything. Randomness cannot. You can prove that something is non-random. You can't prove that God didn't do something. That's why randomness is scientific and God isn't. Randomness is falsifiable. God is not.
