Nunley & The Fine Tuning Argument, Part 3

Is the fishnet analogy flawed?

For Bram, rvkevin and Reid: As much as I admire your discussion of dis-analogies between fishnet cases and the fine-tuning/firing squad stuff, I’m afraid time forbids that I engage at length. However, I think several of us are in agreement that the fishnet case is a flawed analogy.-Troy Nunley

I don’t agree that the fishnet case is flawed. Its just that when you transfer the conditions to the firing squad case, you don’t keep them the same. Concerning P(O&OSE|H1)=P(O&OSE|H2) for the firing squad example. If the the chance of them intending to kill him and missing is zero so even with the strongest OSE, there will never be a population to select from, P(O&OSE|H1)=/=P(O&OSE|H2) and is not analogous to the fishnet. If you change the conditions and say there is a chance of missing, then I don’t find anything strange with such an outcome.

It would be like if I were to investigate executions and I advertised to anyone who participated in an execution as the target to come be interviewed and they would be my sample. Not to anyone’s surprise, everyone I interviewed survived their execution. Now, I agree, if you change the hypothesis to say, “There are at least 50 people who survived their execution when their executioner intended otherwise”, then it would convey some information, but that’s not what we’re concerned about about. We want to know the probability of interviewing someone who survived an execution when they were intended to be killed with this OSE. If such an event is possible, then everyone I interview would confirm that they survived. So, how is it odd that P(O&OSE|H1)=P(O&OSE|H2) when P(O&OSE|H2)=100%?

Its just that in the firing squad case, you eliminate the element of chance. It would be like me asking the probability of someone placing a soccer ball on the goal line and then missing the net accidentally. They would have to intentionally aim away from the target to miss. So it follows logically that they intended to miss. 1. If they intend to hit the target, they will hit the target. 2. They did not hit the target 3. Therefore they did not intend to hit the target. It would seem that for the firing squad example to have any weight in this aspect, you would need to demonstrate that the universe is unable to form by “chance”.

One last thing to say about the fishnet and firing squad comparison. Let’s say the fishermen puts a net out in the ocean at random that is only able to catch one fish (bigger than Nemo). A fish of sufficient size swims in and thinks, “The odds that I would be the one to swim into this net are so remarkably low, I think I have evidence that the fisherman intended to catch ME.” How is this any different than the firing squad example? In essence, it shows that in the case of the firing squad (if possible), we are placing special meaning on one particular outcome, when in reality, its compatible with chance and implies no intention.