"If I were to get infinite even numbers, the same rules would apply, the outcome would still be random."
I agree with the first and second sentences, but I would think it should be obvious. The third sentence is vague. In any case, I don't follow the connection to the rest of the thread.
General comment, specifically not directed at you, Rob...
I think there is a problem in trying to apply philosophical arguments to the realm of science. a) One can say all sorts of things that on the surface seem perfectly reasonable or even obvious.
b) One can even sputter nonsense continually that sounds very impressive and which one actually believes to be true.
c) One can even delude one's self into believe that one's nonsense is genius.
But until one can phrase one's theories with sufficient specificity that one can conceive and carry out an actual experiment to disprove the idea - if it is wrong - then one isn't doing science.
That's not to say that scientists can't speculate. There seems to be a period in the progression of most scientific ideas when they are more properly termed a proto-science (to borrow a term from E. O. Wilson).
This is when scientists toss out lots of different ideas - almost like a protracted brain-storming session. What are we trying to study? What core questions are we trying to answer? What is the right terminology to use? What do we really mean when we say X? How do we distinguish our goals from those of existing sciences? What methodologies are likely to produce the answers we can use?
It's not that this doesn't happen continually. Surely this kinda of docimasy can extend well into the lifetime of a mature science. But there is a time in the beginning, an exciting, frantic time when people are just figuring out the framework they're going to use for investigation.
Nothing is set in stone. Goals can be amended. Terminology can change meaning as we come to understand things better.
But, see, here's the thing. I kinda understand how my car works. In general terms, not specific. I can't repair my car. I'm pretty sure I could figure it out, but I have no more interest in that than I do in painting my house. I'd rather pay someone - a lot - than do it myself. I'm a generalist in my field, but relative to society, I'm very highly specialized. (Oh, I can do manual labor, but I refuse now.)
Suppose I wanted to go to a forum where mechanics meet. Some are amateurs, some are professionals.
But I feel confident that because I know the PV diagram of an Otto cycle, that I can meet with these fellows and definitively and authoritatively refute their opinions on car repair. My guess is, if I did this, I would either be ignored or laughed out - and rightly so. I'm really extrapolating far beyond anything I know about. How much worse would it be if instead of knowing about the Otto cycle, suppose the sum of my experience consisted of having once watched a video of a person driving a car.
There are people in the world who haven't done the least bit of real homework on a subject and then feel qualified to refute every bit of work that's ever been done on it.
I'm really at a loss for why this happens.
