"What do you think the odds are that the Rockies will win the World Series?"
"What sort of chance do I have of winning the lottery?"
The standard answer I give them is "About a 50% chance." My reasoning is that there are only two possibilities. It either will happen or it will not happen, so the odds are 50-50.
It sounds a bit ridiculous, and the answer is not based at all on real probabilities or statistical research. It is overly simplistic to conclude that if there are only two possible outcomes, then they are both equally plausible. As ridiculous as this seems, lots of people make some pretty compelling arguments based on the either it will happen or it won't. You may not recognize the name Lloyd Christian, but he was the character played by Jim Carey in the classic movie, Dumb and Dumber. You may remember the scene where he is smitten by the beauty and charm of Mary Swanson. He boldly goes for it:
Lloyd: "What are my chances (with you)??
Mary: "Not good."
Lloyd: "You mean not good like one out of a hundred?"
Mary: "I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: "So you're telling me there's a chance...YEAH!!!"
You can watch it on this youtube link:
Lloyd and Mary
 |
| "So you're telling me there's a chance." |
Again, it sounds pretty ridiculous, but it is frightening that many people, against all measures of sound reason, make ridiculous claims that fly in the face of sound judgement.
In 1983 Martin Scorsese produced The Last Temptation of Christ. It was a work of fiction that at the time got the Christian community all riled up, because of the non-historical and non-biblical representation of Jesus. Part of the story involves Jesus marrying Mary Magdelene and having a child by her. Scorsese was just making a provocative fictitious movie based on a highly revered character, but I recall at the time having multiple conversations with people who were convinced not only that it could have happened, but that it most likely did happen.
The basis for this and probably most conspiracy theories is related to the same logic that says either it happened or it didn't. Even though historical research and the biblical record presents no evidence that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, nowhere in history or in the bible is it recorded that he didn't. This sort of argument is also often called an argument from silence.
Recently I heard a sermon at church, where the pastor was commenting on the age of the 12 disciples. There is no biblical reference to their actual ages when they first began to follow Jesus. The pastor referred to a Rabbinical scholar who reasoned that according the Jewish tradition of the times, most of the disciples were as young as 12 or 13 years old when they first met Jesus. Hey, why not? Because we have no reliable historical or biblical record of their ages, why couldn't they have been as young as 12 or 13? For many folks these days, making an argument from silence is the same as being given a huge white space in which to paint in all sorts of possibilities.
Here are some more examples:
Assassination of JFK: Here's how the argument goes:
Lee Harvey Oswald may not have been the only shooter (either he was or he wasn't), which leads to...
Lee Harvey Oswald probably didn't act alone, which leads to...
Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone, and the truth is being covered up.
Remote possibility becomes plausibility, which becomes certainty, even if it flies in the face of the least bit of evidence.
9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Most of these theories allege that the United States government conducted the 9/11 attacks or knew beforehand the attacks would happen but deliberately did nothing to prevent it in order to drastically alarm and sway public opinion to favor war. 9/11 conspiracy theories also suggest other conspirators were involved.
Here's how this argument goes:
We have absolutely no evidence that others were involved in the 9/11 terror attack, which leads to...
Even though we have no evidence of others involved, that doesn't rule out the possibility that others were involved. (either they were or they were not involved) which leads to...
It is plausible to believe that there were other entities responsible for this act of terror, which leads to...
Most likely, there were other people involved and responsible for this terrible act.
Again, the argument is built from silence, with a complete lack of any supporting evidence.
What are the odds that anybody will actually read this post? Answer: There's a 50% chance somebody will. Either they will or they won't.
