Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

QUOTE 137 - 16 Comments
From: John Entered on: June 30, 2004 1:16 PM
You know that evolution isn't random. Richard Dawkins says..... oh, this wasn't meant to open serious dialog was it? Sorry, it's just that I'm reading this sweet book called the Blind Watchmaker (recommended to me by Bert) and I'd also like to recommend it. Bone would enjoy it for sure.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 30, 2004 1:27 PM
For what it's worth, I don't think Family Feud has been the same since Richard Dawkins left.
From: Ross Entered on: June 30, 2004 1:32 PM
Yeah, didn't that other guy kill himself? And who's running it now? Al from Home Improvement?
From: John Entered on: June 30, 2004 1:42 PM
Yep, it's Al from Home Improvement.
From: Ross Entered on: June 30, 2004 1:45 PM
To return to Jack's original comment - is the phrase misusing the word "random"? I guess it might be - either something is random or it isn't - though in computer science, we have to worry about our techniques for arriving at random numbers, when we need them, that we aren't getting truly random ones. So I suppose looking at it like that, there are degrees of randomness. As far as that goes, I'm not sure that randomness actually exists at all - it might just be varying levels of ignorance.     However, if we use a colloquial definition of randomness which is to say that the outcome can't be predicted with any reliability beyond statistical averages - like coin flips - half are going to be heads, half are going to be tails and the coin landing on one side or the other isn't any more random than the other - then truly random events have an equal chance of occuring, thus no outcome can be more random than another.     So I guess this means the phrase is not the logical equivalent of "What are the odds of that?", though I'm sure that's what it is supposed to mean.     Have I sufficiently taken the fun out of this one yet?
From: John Entered on: June 30, 2004 2:16 PM
You really could write a paper on anything, couldn't you Bert? So could anyone else I suppose but not with the zeal and eloquence you tend to write with. Most of us don't have the desire to. You on the other hand seem to love it. Well, I find it amusing at any rate, so keep up the good work.
From: The Bone Entered on: June 30, 2004 10:01 PM
Zilla, how is the phrase sweet in that context? Ross, throught the use of his psuedo-intellectual jibber jabber actually makes a good point. It really isn't a perfectly suitable substitute for the phrase "What are the odds of that?", however, I would imagine that if you used it routinely, 9 out of 10 people would know exactly what you mean and not waste a single brain cell analysing the statement. So it begs me to ask the question, "Why is it notable as a quote?"
From: John Entered on: June 30, 2004 10:40 PM
There's Rochespeak for Roche of course and now there's "psuedo-intellectual jibber jabber" for Johnson. I love it!
From: Ross Entered on: June 30, 2004 11:03 PM
My jibber-jabber was a bit tongue-in-cheek - more to amuse myself than anything. But yeah, I think the point stands.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 30, 2004 11:23 PM
Wow. Let's try to explain this.     Bone - The phrase WASN'T used in place of "what are the odds of that" (Bert came up with that out of the blue). That might've made sense. It WAS used in the place of "what a coincidence."     If two incidents happen coincidently, why would anyone ask "how random is that"? What the fuck does that statement even MEAN? Sorry... I guess its another one of those things only I find funny. Mark this one down under the "Grain of Rice Response" column.
From: Ross Entered on: June 30, 2004 11:26 PM
Dude, I dunno, but I'm guessing that we all pretty much equate the two statements "what are the odds of that" and "what a coincidence". Maybe I'm just retarded....
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 30, 2004 11:39 PM
I think y'all have been reading too many Mike Tyson quotes...
From: Swerb Entered on: June 30, 2004 11:53 PM
You know, I don't necessarily equate "what are the odds of that" with "what a coincidence." To me, the odds statement should be used when something truly extraordinary happens, like, say, a chunk of a satellite lands in your backyard. Is there anything coincidental about it? I guess, if you stretch the definition to say it's coincidental that it happened to land in YOUR backyard, instead of your neighbor's, but unless you had some previous connection to the satellite (your astronaut brother helped launch it, or something). Coincidence to me would be visiting Boise, Idaho and running into a friend from high school... or looking at a picture from your sister's rehearsal dinner at a restaurant from 1996, and seeing your current fiance in the background (which really happened to me). Some would argue that some horseshit called "destiny" is involved, but to me, that's just remarkable coincidence - or, perhaps, the somewhat inexplicable randomness of the universe, a number is never really a number, but only "approaches" that number, chimpanzees typing Shakespeare, etc., etc.     Actually, I've noticed that saying something is "random" has kind of entered our slang. Like, if you're in the middle of a crowded room, and a stranger comes up and talks to you for no apparent reason, I've heard people describe the occurrence as "so random." As in, from your perspective, it was just a random person, and from his perspective, you, too, were (perhaps) chosen at random.     Also, I don't know technical grammar that well (even though I'm a writer; I just go "by ear"), but Jack's posted quote is an ill-fitting use of the word "random." It's best used when, say, choosing something "at random" or "randomly," or describing a "random number" (to steal Bert's example). The quote is grammatically awkward because it borders on nonsensical, but has come to have a common meaning in our vernacular - just like "jibber jabber" has no intrinsic meaning, but we all know what it implies.     Just wanted to prove that I, too, am capable of pseudo-intellectual jibber jabber. I also might add that this is one of the stranger discussions we've had on this site... although not quite on par with the grain of rice.
From: The Bone Entered on: July 1, 2004 12:55 AM
Swerb - I especially like the satellite example. Funny as hell.     I don't think "random" can equate to "cooincidence" which is what Jack is pointing out. However, it could be used in place of "what are the odds of that?", though still not technically accurate.     The use of "random" in the modern vernacular would be an example where two people are having a coversation about religion and out of nowhere comes a statement about rocking chairs. Random.     I actually think the "Grain of Rice" concept was pretty funny although flawed.
From: Creeko Entered on: July 1, 2004 3:36 AM
I would say that randomness is analogous with quantum physics. It?s all based on the string theory. You see I watched a documentary on Discovery so that makes me a foremost expert on the subject. I also liked to watch Quantum Leap. In this show (I don?t remember if his name was) Sam, would randomly spawn into someone else?s body and he, his holographic friend and Ziggy the supercomputer would have to foil future altering events. It was all very random so I suppose in the case of Quantum Leap, after watching an episode one could say, ?how random was that?.
From: Ross Entered on: July 1, 2004 8:09 AM
Here's the thing: a coincidence is something where (supposedly) the odds are thought to be small. Hence, I can equate a coincidence with asking "what are the odds" - in this case that's what distinguishes a coincidence from something that is uninteresting. However, it is also true that an event occuring with a low probability does not have to involve coincidence. Kind of like the fact that a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. I can't remember what the word for this kind of relationship is. Subset, maybe. A coincidence is a subset of low probability events.     So I still stick by what I said: if you mean "what a coincidence!" you're essentially (but not quite, I agree) saying "what are the odds of that?"