DougL wrote:
[edited]
> But presumably over time if some people were inherently "lucky" and
> another far larger group inherently "unlucky" then the "lucky" people
> would have a somewhat stronger tendancy to gamble and this tendancy
> would grow over time after the introduction of legal lotteries as the
> "unlucky" players gave up in disgust and the "lucky" players played
> more by reinvesting part of their winnings. Thus the fraction of
> players who win should be increasing over time following the
> introduction of a lottery if there were any such "lucky" players. And
> such trends would be noticed and haven't been. Hence we need an even
> more convoluted and contrived rule for WHY the winners/losers ratio
> remains more or less constant.
>
> Basically, if precogition exists it doesn't work at casinos or
> lotteries for some reason or is so rare that it doesn't show up even
> against rather careful checking of the masses of people who visit Vegas
> and similar resorts. This strikes me as unlikely.
>
> DougL
Very good setup but bad follow-through. With all due respect, you
*employed* faulty logic to arrive at a flawed conclusion -- I think you
know that, but I appreciate it, so I'll bite:
How can you say that someone who has won big in the lottery or at a
casino has not done so through some sort of precognitive or prescient
ability? Heck, in writing, it's a cliche! WHILE I AM NOT ACCUSING
*YOU* OF DOING SUCH, I submit that this kind of logic is par-for-course
amongst the JREF camp: "No one who believes in this sort of thing is
clever enough to outsmart us, because everyone who believes in such
things is an idiot by nature."
Bear with me, here:
It just so happens that when you win big at a casino or in a lottery,
you are asked to do promotions for that [thing] -- take pictures, do
"spots," give your name, and so on. Obviously, that can be
problematic, if you think about it -- and I mean *really* think about
it, as opposed to slagging it. A lot of people who come into large
sums of money like that end up in very bad circumstances -- please look
it up! -- drug abuse, bad relationships, victims of crime, on and on.
MC Hammer, anyone? So a lot of people who win big choose not to do
promos for safety reasons. Now, that's not a "conspiracy theory,"
that's real.
Given that, what about what you noted *proves* that someone with a
decidedly "psychic" vision could not have won the lottery or at a
casino -- just once, only once -- VERY big, and flown under the radar?
Or even that casinos have not thrown someone(s) out just for being
lucky?
Hell, I have gotten *very* lucky at casinos at least once: they
swap-out dice, they move in new pit-bosses, they get stony-faced, they
have two or three people stand around you, they follow you around, they
watch your every move... They may not take you in the back and break
your hands with a hammer (God willing), but you're obviously being
watched and their excuse is that you -- because YOU made this point --
*must* be cheating, so they are *only* "watching" you... you know, cuz
you might be cheating.
It's called "cooling" and the people who do it are called "coolers."
I mean, winning this "bet" would be very big news, indeed. And attract
a lot of attention -- possibly unwanted.
Now, no offense, but if a multi-billion
BILLION
dollar industry believes in "luck" -- to the extent that they literally
hire people to "cool" these streaks... and respected institutions and
independent researchers put at least enough stock into such ideas to
spend muchos money researching it... why would you cling so desperately
to one guy who says that he does not believe in such things, if it were
not just a cult of personality?
In effect, James Randi has made a career out of this thing. He makes
plenty of money appearing on talk shows as a "skeptic," and the whole
bet has improved his image and boosted his career -- far beyond his
performance abilities.
Either way -- regardless of whatever is said -- at the end of the day,
the absence of proof *proves* NOTHING.
Just so you know, I totally respect your opinion -- as well as I do
those who are like-minded -- I'm not continuing this conversation in
order to be witty at someone else's expense, nor do I mean to
intimidate people so that they do not speak their minds or challenge my
opinions. But if you're going to attack me and call me names, I'll
light your ass up. And *you* did NOT -- you played a very good hand
and I thank you! I enjoy discussing things like this with people who
also enjoy discussing things, but I don't like to be trolled or
insulted anymore than anyone else. But I did tell you on the front-end
that I'm not unfamiliar with the process.
