Atheist Debates - Black Swan fallacy vs Null Hypothesis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
Is the Black Swan fallacy in conflict with what the Null hypothesis would present as a default position?
Some confusion about what is actually being said, has been the subject of a number of questions - and we'll try to answer them here.
Joke? -- A astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are travelling, by train, from England to Scotland for the first time. On crossing the border they look out of the window and see a black sheep. The astronomer states 'look - all sheep in Scotland are black' . the physicist retorts ' no - some sheep in Scotland are black'. To which the mathematician replies 'there exists a field in Scotland which contains at least one sheep of which one side is black'.
*astrologist
I've always giggled at the Black Swan fallacy. I live in Australia and I've never seen a white swan!
(love your work Matt).
Yes, in New Zealand and Australia it should be called the 'white swan fallacy'. Although in Oz, the 'non-lethal animal' fallacy would work too! ;-)
There are apparently some black swans in UK too as invasive species. But even I here in Finland have seen a stuffed individual in a museum. They are really beautiful.
@@Grim_Beard nah. They're white for the most part. Black ones are uncommon and usually busting from Oz.
And then, in South America - are the black necked swans - two worlds collided!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-necked_swan
@@Grim_Beard
All animals are lethal if you eat enough of them.
Interesting way of looking at these two things Matt. However, I think the root of the problem may really be that people simply use the term 'null hypothesis' inappropriately. Used correctly, the null hypothesis (H0) only exists in conjunction with the alternative (sometimes called experimental) hypothesis (H1). The null hypothesis is not a 'thing' in and of itself, rather only existing as the null of the alternative hypothesis. Importantly, the alternative hypothesis needs to *be* a hypothesis, which means it needs (among other things) to be specific.
"God exists" is not a valid H1, because it is not specific - which god and what are its qualities? - so there is no accompanying H0 "God does not exist". It is therefore not correct to say that the non-existence of god(s) is the null hypothesis. In contrast, "Jehovah, the god as described in the Bible, exists" is specific enough to be an H1, with the concomitant H0 then being "Jehovah, the god as described in the Bible, does not exist". When we have an H1 that is specific, it also becomes testable. In this example, we have copious evidence that Jehovah, as described in the Bible, does not exist (e.g. there was no global flood, species were not created in their modern forms, etc. so the god described as doing those things has been falsified).
What we should do, then, as sceptics and/or scientists is stop using the term 'null hypothesis' incorrectly. We can only have a null hypothesis in response to an alternative hypothesis. Saying to a theist "I'm adopting the null hypothesis" without them putting forward their own alternative hypothesis relieves them of the burden of making a specific, testable claim. We should require them to do that first - asking "what is it that you believe?" and requiring them to elucidate it clearly (even if it's as basic as, for instance, "Jesus as described in the gospel of John" or "Allah as described in the Quran"). If we can already falsify a specific H1 then we don't even need to fall back on the null hypothesis in the first place; if we can't only then do we assume the null whilst awaiting evidence for the specific H1 they have put forward.
So glad you said this! I initially used the null hypothesis like Matt, however having spent some time learning the scientific method, I've relaised as you stated the null hypothesis exists in conjunction with alternative hypothesis. Knowing this places the burden of proof on then person testing the hypothesis and claiming the null hypothesis has been disproven.
I exist, therefore you are.
This is great, thanks! I think I always agree with Matt, but he is so much ahead of me, I don't fully understand his reasoning. This is closer to my speed of learning. Thanks again
Nothing better than smoking a joint and listening to Matt drop knowledge. #303
I'm all for smoking a joint on occasion - or I would be, if it were legal here - but I want a cup of coffee when I'm listening to Matt, because I need to be as clear-headed as possible!
@@Bill_Garthright Sometimes weed gives you insights that coffee cannot. But admittedly weed may not be the best drug to consume when trying to wrap your head around logical fallacies.
@@daithiocinnsealach1982
Heh, heh. Weed gives you 'insights' the way religion does. In both cases, it might be entertaining, but it's silly to take it seriously.
Admittedly, I was never a big fan of religion. :)
@@Bill_Garthright I agree on the link between religion and drugs. Which is why religion used to equate drug talking with religion itself. Sometimes in a positive light and sometimes negative. But we now have better explanations, which is interesting to ponder in light of what was just talked bout in the video regarding the null hypothesis and geocentrism.
But I disagree on the conclusion we should take regarding the psychological insights gained. Religion and drugs, when done right, can help us understand human nature. When done wrong they can corrupt and destroy.
It was a true statement when it was said that religion is the opium of the masses.
Hey Matt! I have been watching your videos for years. You do great stuff. First i found the Atheist Experience on TH-cam and it went on from there.You have a fan in Sweden! :D
/Marlon
More than one. :)
Último Suspiro
If the game was to say as many incoherent things in the most arrogant way possible, then ye Dillahunty got owned.
He has at least two fans from Sweden ;)
Suspiro - You're mistaken. You're right in that if you compare rape statistics of different countries, Sweden will appear to have a high number of rapes, but a large part of that is that we take the crime seriously, so many of those crimes (for example rape within a marriage) wouldn't be considered rape in some other countries. For more information, see www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/
Evidence three 👍
Thank you for your thoughts!
I find that many people can't grasp the differences you explained very well. Have shared this video to educate some people. Thank You, Matt.
This is an incredibly concise description of the topic, thank you for this
This was exactly what I was trying to find when you answered me before. It would have been helpful to just link me this vid. I just chanced upon it. I really needed this vid.
You think I have all of my videos memorized and available to link to anyone who asks?
@@SansDeity yes I did but I can see where that would be unreasonable.
@@SansDeity just to clarify I wasn't trying to be rude but I think I came off that way, so sorry. I find you're videos very helpful and enlightening.
I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the dislikes on this video come from flat-earthers.
Or purple swan worshipers
The Aussie Cumquat sir are you daring to mock the divinity of the elephant sized purple swans that inhabit our great glass domed plane?
That or they all came from gman's many troll accounts.
Is it rational to believe doubts have shadows? I think not. The burden is on you. Also what is beyond a shadow? Your court has a ball in it sir. Oh...wait. Shit.
@@mindlander
Beyond a shadow would be not a shadow.
I should know, I created shadows and not shadows.
Well put, but you forgot one important detail: limits of definitions!
For example, someone could make the *claim* that there are no purple swans the size of elephants and still be correct, not because there's certainty in its non existence, but because such creature would fall so outside the limits of what we understand as "a swan", that even existing, could no longer possibly be considered a swan anymore.
It's a bit like the paradox trick question: how tall can a dwarf grow? In theory, there's no reason to think that *whatever height* you think it's the maximum, there couldn't be one a couple inches taller... the problem is, at what point is he no longer considered a dwarf!?
I have to admit that mat has helped me a lot in my limited thinking, I do confess tho the nuances of logic make my head hurt !
Am i the only one wondering about the four pieces of 2 by 4 behind Matt on the desk? Are they props for another fallacy video?
The Null Hypothesis is the hypothetical position one assumes that, if true, would falsify whatever hypothesis is being tested, truth to be determined by the data (evidence), naturally.
Joe Gillian
The interesting thing about the null hypothesis is that it can never be shown as true. If results appear consistent with the null hypothesis this doesn't prove it is true, it only shows that it or other hypotheses, not including the tested alternative hypothesis, could be true.
i think its fair to point out that you can have an argument with false premises and a false conclusion and, at the same time, an argument with justified premises and a justified conclusion
How I understood the null hypothesis is you're in a world & you want to know how it works, so you can make the best decisions.So do you accept any claim uttered as true for simply being asserted
or do you with hold judgement on items & their relation to each other until it has been demonstrated.
If you go down the first path you might wind up killing people to ward off enemies that don't exist.
If you go down the second path you are more likely to not make major life decisions on rumors.
I really like these videos about logic and reasoning.
If feel a "but" coming... but I think at 17:43 you meant to say "spinning around its axis". This in order to get the same observation of the movement of the sun.
Keep up the good work 👍
I want to have as many justified beliefs and as few unjustified beliefs as possible. It might not sound as good as a mantra that the alternatives but it avoids a lot of problems and confusion
I follow what Matt is saying and it has helped my understanding of logic. I have often thought about this issue associated with the black swan fallacy. And I think there is another way of looking at this point, and that is that being black doesn't change the nature of being a swan. Why is the statement; all swans are white; actually a statement to be considered worth falsifing. It is almost as if that statement is void of any note worthy claim. Having feathers is a trait associated with being a swan and we know feathers come in many colours. So all swans are white is a statement to be taken with some uncertainty from the outset. It is not a big jump in knowledge to find black or indeed any other coloured swans existing.
Agreed. All swans are white is a step too far. There is a fine line that Matt put into words well, but my understanding (before video, but think I'm still on the right track) is that all swans are white is the black swan fallacy. Ironically i accept that i may be wrong on this
There's a connection between the Andromeda galaxy and erectile dysfunction right?
Aferm
I have to blame something ....
Some kinds of things are not black or white (swans). These are the category of the pint or two problem. We have to go on what is most likely, and not in the common sense way Matt mentions about whether you have a $100 bill in your wallet. We have to look at statistical distributions and averages, but also variation. For example I might think Australian shepherds are smarter than poodles. I have to prove that because the default is that there is no difference, all things equal. But we first have to agree on definitions. That's best settled over a pint or two :D
Also, the Black Swan argument is inductive reasoning, and I consider all inductive arguments to be fallacious. I'm curious what Matt thinks about inductive arguments, whether or not they can be cogent.
Chapman Cohen:
''Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense''
I've seen a purple swan the size of a swan and I've seen a white swan the size of an elephant ..... what does that mean ?
Matt. On the subject of fallacies. Do you think that Richard Dawkins Boing 747 argument is a logical fallacy? Because he compares an unknown creator of unknown unknown orgin to something of known complexity(747) and known nature.?? False comparison right?...?
No connection between that shirt and infant mortality? Come on, everyone knows atheists wear special shirts whenever we go out foraging for babies. The orange shirts attract the most delicious ones.
Now.. if one says they believe there is no god, do they have a burden of proof or are they simply justified in believing that because it's the null hypothesis and it hasn't been disproved?
There is no burden of proof because they are not making a positive claim. They are, instead, not believing the positive claim made by others that there is a god. Therefore, they are entitled to request the evidence by those making the claim.
So the black swan fallacy only applies to positive claims, not the null hypothesis.
I'm still not clear about the null hypothesis though. It's that there's no connection between x and y? So how did you arrive at: the null hypothesis was that the sun orbits the earth? What's the connection between x and y there?
Some visual aids would really help this discussion I think.
I thought the default position is that you just don't know. Why isn't it?
There are an infinite number of things that don't exist. It is unreasonable to assume that they all might exist.
It is reasonable to say that we start with the null hypothesis. That does not deny the existence of these things it just says that the level of evidence to show that they exist has not been shown.
@@fcomley so with something like Russell's teapot (excluding the fact that we know it's just an example) we should say: I don't believe because there is not sufficient evidence. Not: I don't know.
This sounds a bit strange to me, is the default position non-existence then?
@@applicableapple3991 - It's not about belief. It's about evidence and reason.
The null hypothesis means that if there is no evidence for something it is reasonable to say that it doesn't exist with the caveat that our position is subject to change.
If we said that because we can't see Russell's Teapot with our current technology then it doesn't exist then we would be failing with the black swan fallacy.
Saying " As there is no evidence we conclude that our provisional position is that it does not exist but we welcome anyone that wishes to provide evidence" is reasonable
@@fcomley okay thanks👍
Matt I would like to see you do a talk about what naturalism means and does it presuppose materialism
I have a question. I have the thought that when someone says something exists then it's a positive claim. When someone says something doesn't exist, aren't you making a negative claim? You can't prove that something doesn't exist. It seems impossible in my logic, but of course, I could be thinking of it wrong. Can someone try to clarify it?
No i think you're right where you should be. "There are no black swans" and "all swans are white" are equally guilty (and wrong as it were). There are no purple swans is different then i don't think there's purple swans, or even no purple swans that i know of. It comes down to conviction to the idea (probably lol)
well not sure about the shirt.. i mean i wanted to die when i see that shirt XD
So, in summary, using the black swan:
*Null hypothesis* - I have seen no evidence for back swans, but will be able to recognise one if one appears. Until such time, swans cannot be said to be black.
*Black swan fallacy* - I conclude that black swans don't exist for I have never seen one.
Edited to add: Several people respond to this and disagree with me. No one can explain how I'm wrong, and the last person to respond paints himself into a corner before bitterly gloating about my ultimate demise in ignorance. Disappointing, but entertaining, I suppose.
Smaakjeks K No. The black swan fallacy concludes there is no black swans BECAUSE they have only seen white ones. The null hypothesis concludes that there is no black swans BECAUSE a black swan has never been demonstrated to exist. The REASON/JUSTIFICATION for your position is important. Also, its important to note that the null hypothesis is a falsifiable position; meaning it CAN be demonstrated to be false
That's exactly what I wrote.
no. Re-read your black swan fallacy. You worded it incorrectly.
My version of the black swan fallacy:
"I conclude that black swans don't exist for I have never seen one."
Your version:
"there is no black swans BECAUSE they have only seen white ones"
Identical, except that you use "because" and I use "for" (which mean the same thing), and except you word the lack of seeing black swans as having only seen white swans. There is no difference. Both version are fallacious because of the argument from ignorance: personal experience being the reason one concludes that something does not exist.
Smaakjeks K, that's not identical. For there to be no difference in the statements you would have to say " I conclude that black swans don't exist for I have only seen white ones." It's a subtle difference but important. Your versions draws a conclusion for no reason and is therefor the argument from ignorance fallacy. The black swan fallacy has you drawing a conclusion for a wrong reason, not no reason.
hey matt, you should make a video about the difference between a belief in god vs the external world, & whether they both faith based
But then the proposition "god exists" can be adopted as a default position either, because I can go "the creation can't be arbitrary and there must be a designer". The burden of proof has been given. Now it would be up to atheists to show how creation is actually arbitrary, but that's an absurd. No one can really speak about creation because no one was there, there wasn't any writing system and word-of-mouth can't be sufficiently reliable.
So in reality, we'd have a paralysis of judgment about creation and the origin of the world because no one can really set one of the two position as the deafult one. No position is actually free from the burden of proof.
The Null Hypothesis is a quick tool to cut off many unrealistic assumptions, just like a philosophical razor, but it's just a default position itself, can't justify itself. What is a deafult position? Something taken as true until proven wrong? We didn't make any progress, because "true" depends on many other things that just those parameters you build any default position on. If those parameters are based on evidence, then the Null Hypothesis is just Galileo's experimental method: just useful for technical issue, not suitable for intellectual reasoning about god. Many assumptions can in turn be drawn from the Null Hypothesis. For example, one can claim that there's no pre and after life by looking at physical reality: we were not a thing until we were conceived, and after death our body is basically just a bunch of atoms bounded togheter, like everything else, and the person is gone. It could be easy to say that there's no connection between death and an after life (and birth with pre life) because it doesn't seem to be the case, and to take this one as the default position that would need to be disproven, but it's not the case, it's just an assumption, a myth, just like heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc. Non-existence would be something free from the burden of proof according to the Null Hypothesis, but it can't be. Just like for the god issue, there are places human's mind just can't reach. When it pretends it reached them, it assumes things. When you try and use science to investigate unreachable issues like gos and pre-after-life, you're committing a mistake - a fallacy - in the beginning, just by treating those unknowable things as scientifical objects that can be observed and studied.
It's equally irrational to either live as god existed and as god didn't. Here we need to be aware of the paralysis of judgment we are forced to.
Great video! On the purple swan the size of an elephant falacy, I'd argue that the definition of "a swan" must be made absolutely clear first.
Tomas Beha. Why? Swans are a well understood species. Anything purple and swan like seen must first be confirmed to be a swan. This is done through well understood definitions already established. Should be also have to define elephant? And purple? And size?
Okay, I think I've got it.
so, the point is there's no such thing as an elephant-sized purple swan.
Maybe
The presentation of the "Null Hypothesis," is falsely conceived. It only applies to those posits that cannot be examined such as there is a purple rock on Venus. If one adds to the posit, "that speaks" the null hypothesis now does not apply in that one can form a reasonable induction that the posit is false as no rocks are known to speak. The Null Hypothesis is in reality useless.
The Black Swan fallacy is no fallacy at all really in that until the data comes in one cannot do anything but assert. If placed as an induction, the Black Swan fallacy is no fallacy either formally or informally as one is dealing with likelihoods and probabilities. Herein he states it deductively, which certainly is fallacious. It is interesting to me that he rightly states: "Just because something hasn't happened in your experience doesn't mean the experience" doesn't point to something that is veridical to the experience. I changed the nature of his statement as it was ambiguously stated I assume as a colloquial means of making the statement. In terms of God's existence, this whole video places God's existence as equally plausible to God's non-existence.
Excellent!
Matt, Please explain.
Why should the default be "There are no swans until demonstrated that there are"
rather than "We don't know if there are any swans"
Because whether you know it or not is not the position being examined. Existential claims are On/Off, either it exists or it doesn't. There isn't any secret middle point where it kinda exists.
This is like if I asked you whether or not I could buy lemonade on a sunday morning in Texas and you instead tell me about how much you like lemonade.
How do you examine the position of whether something exists or not if you lack knowledge about it ?
By experiment. This is why the default is that it doesn't exist. You can more easily falsify something's nonexistence than you can falsify something's existence.
Especially given something that actually exists, like swans.
I'm having trouble understanding how you're not getting this.
How do you listen to music if you don't understand how pressure waves in the air translate into sound in our brains?
To clarify,
Would the null hypothesis for claim "George is asleep" be "George is not asleep"
and for someone else claiming that "George is awake", "George is not awake?"
That sounds right to me, but honestly, it's weird to me that we swapped examples from an existential question to whether someone is asleep or not, though I guess I can understand the utility of this example. You don't appear to make this mistake, but aware and asleep are not a true dichotomy.
Interestingly, they make a great parallel to the god does/does not exist prongs of argument.
A case could be made for George being awake, or asleep, but to argue that he is awake, you would have to disprove the null hypothesis, which is that he isn't.
This is all complicated by what we mean when we say "Awake" and "Asleep," (consider the sleepwalker, sleeptalker, sleepfucker, and sleepeater)
There's no reason to have a null hypothesis and it is not the default position. The default position is "idk" 😐
Sorry.. but you're wrong and must have missed something.
my brain lost most of its plasticity after that. there are purple cows and purple rains and purple hearts, but until you see it in the bible it doesn't really become reality? please discuss.
Excellent.
Thus is why agnosticism is the default position for me. I do not know how universes are made. I do not know if any gods exist. I have no reason to believe they exist or do not exist.
So begin your claims with "as far as I know" or "I could be wrong but" and you can say whatever you want. You make reason sound subjective.
If the null hypothesis claims that there's no connection between things until it's observed, and you claim the null hypothesis claims the default position is there's no connection between purple swans and things that exist, isn't it equally valid to say the null hypothesis claims the default position should also be that there's also no connection between purple swans and things that don't exist? If we take this into the realm of theism then, it seems the null hypothesis is advocating agnosticism as the default position until there's overall evidence one way or another.
Tara Stahler The logical absolute of Gods existence is that God either exists or does not exist. There is no fence sitting with regards to truth. One can believe either way, but as soon as one claims to know either way then the burden of proof is on them.
The Null hypothesis must be falsifiable. You cannot prove something doesn’t exist.
come to Dawlish South Devon, there are loads of black swans.
I think I'd actually disagree about what the Black Swan fallacy means.
I'd explain it as "It's not that we *know* that there are no black swans. However, given that we have only seen white swans, it is _reasonable to believe_ that there are no black swans - as long as you keep in mind that we might discover one at any time."
And that's how I'd describe my beliefs about god(s): Given that I've seen exactly zero evidence for the existence of (supernatural) gods, it is reasonable to believe there isn't any, and that is what I believe - until I find evidence to the contrary. (You could expand that to the supernatural in general, and it would be just as true.)
Now I've thought for a while that "god" is actually a sort of title in religions, instead of a term that has a definition that works for everything called "god". Every religion has their own rules about what does and does not get that title. One religion's pantheon member is another's angel, or any number of other descriptions. So the above works for any supernatural god; if you ask me about a non-supernatural, I'd have to look at the details to figure it out.
Kai Henningsen forget what i said i misread what u stated
That shirt DOES have a lot to do with infant mortality rates in third world countries, if it was made with slave labor in highly unsafe work conditions in some village in Bangladesh.
actually, no. you can make a case of correlation between these two, but that's as far as you can go. the shirt itself directly does not have anything to do with infant mortality rates.
Are you saying infants are working in sweat shops or can you demonstrate a correlation between sweat shops and infant mortality
Your assertion is pretty flawed. For one thing, it could be far more convincingly argued that infant mortality rates in third-world countries would be even higher when there is no viable economic base such as that provided by the garment industry, notwithstanding it's reputation for exploitative labour practices and unsafe work conditions.
You ever try to force an infant to run a sewing machine? It's really frustrating, believe me!
"there's no connection between salami sandwiches and claustrophobia." how do you come up with these
There's no connection between Quokka penises and broken coffee makers
*begins extensive research adventure*
A swan the size of an elephant is not feasible just on the grounds of physics. There are no people the size of a paperclip. It is just not possible to cram enough neurons in that small a space that would function like a human being. No baseball player is going to throw a thousand mile an hour fastball. There is no undiscovered continent the size of Australia out there. So there are many things we can know just on the basis of a understanding of the world as it is. In the world of philosophy of course there are these thought experiments constructed to show that we can know nothing with certainty, that we are just brains in a jar being fed unending illusions that we are people walking the earth and having real experiences and so on.
Way too complicated. Missed the target audience completely. If this was a book you'd put it down and stream some Liam Neeson. What is needed is effective communication... not pomposity.
I thought this was pretty much called the red house fallacy.
I read the title and got intrigued because I assumed there was a logical fallacy named after an Aronofsky psychodrama. Oh well.
Please write a book!
I eat my salami sandwiches locked in a closet.
Matt, I don't agree with your position that we can only hold things in science tentatively true. We can say that scientific theories are maximally true within the bounds of the framework they establish. I don't understand why you hold we can have more confidence in a logically necessary argument rather than a scientific theory. Scientific theories mostly rely on mathematically necessary arguments when you accept the mathematical premises similar to how a logically necessary argument rely on their own premises. At some point all of those premises are pre suppositions, and the distinguishing factor of scientific theories is that on top of the mathematically necessary arguments, they also have physical evidence justifying them. So I actually hold scientific theories to a higher regard than a logically necessary argument as long as you don't take a scientific theories outside of the realm that its capable of addressing--for example applying the theory of relatively to a black hole leads to infinities.
So I'm trying to understand this... When I say, "I dont believe Jesus returned to life because people don't come back to life and there is no evidence in the vast tomes of biology to suggest it a possibility":
Why is that NOT still a black swan fallacy?
I think it's because this is backed by science and not just by observation
oh great , someone going to genetically breed a purple elephant sized swan now
No true black swans exist in a deck of cards because no one has observed it. Since no true black swans exist in a deck of cards neither do white swans exist in the deck. That's not my opinion, it's science!
This is the reasoning I deal with on a daily basis.
Great video
E-PLURIBUS-UNUM
;~)
If I understand you correctly, you're assertion is that the atheist position should be based on the Null hypothesis? That being the case, it seems a bit slippery to state that the burden of proof rests on the positive claims of the existence of God, yet to frame the negation as simply a default position e.g., no purple swans the size of elephants exist until such time as it is proven to be true, therefore requiring no burden of proof. Your position runs the risk of being amorphous if not sophistic in my view, and it sounds more like a recasting agnosticism to appear to be a positive claim while escaping the terminology, than presenting some new way of thinking about the argument against the existence of God.
Two dudes believe that there are no black swans.
all right. who else is stupid?
i think that your shirt probably does not have anything to do with infant mortality rates in third world countries, but i still think we should probably burn it anyway.
4 Black Swans disliked this video.
Very edifying video, but i feel that you left a crucial detail out. Let me ask you this - why do you hate god?
:D
Self-replicating whatnot
Plain and simple. That god has a better
It might help if you were more specific - which god model do you have in mind?
Self-replicating whatnot loool
I actually chuckled at that.
The conclusion if you see 10 white swans is one. If you see 1000, it is another. The probability that the next swan will be white is much greater.
You mean it's greater if you've seen 1000? If there are black swans in the population you study, I don't think that's correct. The probability of seeing a black swan next in that case will increase for every white one you've observed.
The probability of observing a white swan in this scenario will increase if and only if the observed white swans are removed from the population and there are, in fact, black swans extant in the population.
Matt Dillahunty: GOD IS REAL AND HIS NAME IS JESUS!!!
BE BAPTIZED IN JESUS NAME!!! ACTS 2:38
He was. It didn't do anything.
Griexxt Or did it?! You don't know!
It's the null hypothesis.
Griexxt: Why don't you look up Acts 2:38 for yourself and let me know what you think, friend? The POWER of God is contained within that scripture! Praying for you!
Griexxt: You are ill-informed, friend. Matt Dillahunty has NOT had the Acts 2:38 experience according to his background. If he would have the Acts 2:38 experience, then it would change his life FOREVER! Hallelujah!