Well, a degree of faith is necessary as, being solipsistic beings, we cannot prove to ourselves that anything exists beyond our own consciousness. The key, however, is that all rational faith includesdoubt. That doubt is what makes a human being rational. Faithmustcrumble in the face of contradictory evidence. Anything less is, to not mince words, pathetic.
I disagree, but I think we're disagreeing on what "faith' is.
I would say that we need belief as human beings, due to the reasons you've stated above. I'd say that faith is, in addition to that, an attempt to remove this essential doubt.
Hence belief is essential, but faith is a destructive influence. In other words, while there is probably such a thing as a "rational belief", faith is, by definition, irrational.
You never hear people saying "I have faith in the Theory of General Relativity", you do hear them saying they believe it. On the other hand, you very much do hear people saying "I have faith in God".
Hence the distinction between faith and belief is a very useful one, I would say, since it allows us to criticize faith while accepting the necessity of belief.
I'd like to see one example where people of no faith did something like this...
I hope you didn't just say that you want to see another death caused by stupidity.
I think if we take this literally, I said that I'd like to see an example of a death caused by a lack of stupidity. Still, I'll admit that I don't actually want to see such a death at all, but I doubt one would happen anyway.
This joke/story/fable is old and well-known, and it's getting bandied about around the web a bunch thanks to this news story. For those who have never heard it before, though, this is a very appropriate analogue to what these people were thinking and what they should have been thinking, even being religious:
This is a cute story. It can also make a funny joke. However, the philosophy that this story proposes is cruel, and it denigrates every human being who has ever lived.
Read the same story again, but take it from the perspective of the helicopter pilot. Flying a helicopter is stupidly hard. It takes an incredible amount of training and practice just to be able to hover steadily a few feet off the ground. Flying in any helicopter, even piloted by the most professional pilots, is extremely dangerous. It's even more dangerous during a storm situation where there would be a flood or some such. Imagine if you were the helicopter pilot, braving incredible danger, and using your years of training to save lives from a terrible flood. Now imagine someone coming along and giving all the credit for your hard work to god. I would say to that person "fuck you!" The helicopter pilot is a hero, no god had any part in it.
Think about the radio report. For nearly a century humans have had radio communications technology. Think about all of the hard work put in by thousands upon thousands of people. Think about all the studying, all the effort, all the ingenuity, all the raw physical labor of all those human beings over the course of 100 years that it took to create the wireless communications infrastructure that made that emergency broadcast possible. That amazing feat that our species has been able to accomplish is truly remarkable. To give credit for that to god is to insult every hard working human being who has tried so hard to make this world great.
I can only imagine how doctors feel. They spend how many years of their lives suffering through medical school? Then when they actually manage to save someone's life, the people thank god and couldn't give a shit about the doctor. I don't know how I could be a doctor without punching those people in the face. When a doctor helps you, thank the fucking doctor! They sacrificed how much to be able to extend your life, and you're going to give all the credit to your imaginary friend? Talk about an asshole!
Do you remember this video? Saying that god sent the radio report, the helicopter, and the rowboat is no different that saying that the guy in this video moved the escalator, the elevator, the train, etc. Give credit where credit is due. If you worked hard on something you wouldn't want someone to insult you and say that some god did all the work.
I mean, if god is the one taking care of all these things, then we don't need to work hard right? Let's just sit on our asses because all the centuries of amazing things that humans have done were really just gods work. I mean, GeekNights is such a great show because god makes it that way, not because we work our fucking asses off recording every goddamn night.
Hum, I think the story is more about the fact that the goit expected someone to save him rather than him doing the damn thing himself, It could of been Allah or the FSM or any other deity of choice.
...
Wow, too much Red Dwarf does screw with one's writings.
Besides, that's not the point, the point is, because someone was stupid, we missed out on Rym and Scott having a good laugh about one the greatest things to come out of the United Kingdom. That's as many as four tens, and that's terrible.
Scott, you hear people talk about luck, right? Anything that humans cannot control and that is just left up to chance? What is the problem with replacing "luck" with "God" in these cases? You, the doctors, the helicopter pilots, whoever can try to do their utmost but there are still situations where they cannot control every little factor. Is there a difference between saying, "Whoo, boy, that was lucky" and "Thank God?" They are essentially one and the same, in terms of their effect on the world. It is when people are passive in cases where they should take an active role and not leave things up to chance is where this believing in Luck/God makes for trouble.
Rym, Scott, any thoughts on the distinction between faith and belief I put forward in the above?
Faith is just belief without any supporting evidence. It's that simple.
I believe that plants grow. I plant a plant, and measure it every day. Every day the length measured increases. This same thing happens with every plant no matter who measures it. Yes, there is a chance this is not true. Maybe the plant isn't real, and it's all the Matrix. Maybe the plant is evil and it has magic powers that can cause every length measuring device to return incorrect results. Maybe the plant grows in a way that causes an optical illusion that results in incorrect measurements. The only thing I am 100% certain of is cogito, ergo sum. However, I have sufficient evidence that I can safely believe that plants grow.
If I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, that is a matter of faith. There is no evidence that suggests the flying spaghetti monster exists. Is the FMS possible? Yes, there is an incredibly small chance the FSM is real. The odds of that are the same as the odds of the plant using magic to screw with my ruler. However, if those odds are so small that I'm willing to believe the plant grows, despite the possibility that it does not, then I'm willing to disbelieve the FSM if the only possibility of him existing is that small.
Scott, you hear people talk about luck, right? Anything that humans cannot control and that is just left up to chance? What is the problem with replacing "luck" with "God" in these cases? You, the doctors, the helicopter pilots, whoever can try to do their utmost but there are still situations where they cannot control every little factor.
I, for one, dislike the idea of luck, but I admit that when you use luck in the past tense it is not entirely stupid to do so.
If you say "that was lucky", then you're saying "that was an unlikely but positive outcome", which is not unreasonable to say. But the fact that people can also say things like "I'm a lucky guy" is what I really dislike about the term, since such things are just stupid.
Is there a difference between saying, "Whoo, boy, that was lucky" and "Thank God?" They are essentially one and the same, in terms of their effect on the world.
There isn't any real difference, but people say "Thank God for the food on our table"; they don't say "Wow, we're lucky to have food on our table" that often since the fact is that they worked to get food on their table.
It is when people are passive in cases where they should take an active role and not leave things up to chance is where this believing in Luck/God makes for trouble.
Well, I'd argue here that the very nature of faith encourages this kind of passivity. If you tell someone to have faith in God, I think it's encouraging them to rely on the fact that God is there, and not do things on their own.
Rym, Scott, any thoughts on the distinction between faith and belief I put forward in the above?
Faith is just belief without any supporting evidence. It's that simple.
I believe that plants grow. I plant a plant, and measure it every day. Every day the length measured increases. This same thing happens with every plant no matter who measures it. Yes, there is a chance this is not true. Maybe the plant isn't real, and it's all the Matrix. Maybe the plant is evil and it has magic powers that can cause every length measuring device to return incorrect results. Maybe the plant grows in a way that causes an optical illusion that results in incorrect measurements. The only thing I am 100% certain of is cogito, ergo sum. However, I have sufficient evidence that I can safely believe that plants grow.
If I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, that is a matter of faith. There is no evidence that suggests the flying spaghetti monster exists. Is the FMS possible? Yes, there is an incredibly small chance the FSM is real. The odds of that are the same as the odds of the plant using magic to screw with my ruler. However, if those odds are so small that I'm willing to believe the plant grows, despite the possibility that it does not, then I'm willing to disbelieve the FSM if the only possibility of him existing is that small.
Yeah, that's an easier definition than mine. On the basis of that, I guess we can agree that faith is an inherently negative quality in a human being?
Scott, you hear people talk about luck, right? Anything that humans cannot control and that is just left up to chance? What is the problem with replacing "luck" with "God" in these cases? You, the doctors, the helicopter pilots, whoever can try to do their utmost but there are still situations where they cannot control every little factor. Is there a difference between saying, "Whoo, boy, that was lucky" and "Thank God?" They are essentially one and the same, in terms of their effect on the world. It is when people are passive in cases where they should take an active role and not leave things up to chance is where this believing in Luck/God makes for trouble.
Luck is just a human emotion making a false interpretation of perfectly natural circumstances.
Let's say two people are rolling dice. Each person rolls three six sided dice, one at a time. The first person rolls a 1, then a 3, then a 5. Ok. The other person rolls a 6, then a 6, then a 6. Wow! They must be lucky right? NO. The odds of rolling a 1 then a 3 then a 5 are the sames as the odds of rolling a 6, then a 6, then a 6. The human brain is just really bad at understanding the true odds of things. Sometimes things happen that the human mind interprets as being very unlikely. In those cases, it is easy to imagine that some supernatural force caused those circumstances.
There are many other psychological things that influence these sorts of feelings. For example, people are much more likely to remember times they feel lucky than when they don't. This is why psychics using cold-reading can make so many incorrect guesses and still fool people. People remember the hits and forget the misses. You remember the time you bought a winning lottery ticket, but not the hundreds of times you lost.
There's nothing wrong with saying the words "thank god". I actually say it a lot. I say "thank god", "god damnit", and often just "god". That's fine. It's just words. What is problematic is when someone truly believes in some supernatural force. That is the dangerous thinking that can lead to poor, and occasionally dangerous, decision making. If you claim to believe in the existence of a supernatural force, but you don't take it into account when you make decisions, then I argue that you don't really believe in it.
What is the problem with replacing "luck" with "God" in these cases?
I think the difference is that luck is just statistics, and doesn't require faith in anything. If something happened that was against the odds, then it's perfectly fair to say that it was lucky. Skill got the doctor or whomever as close to the goal as it possibly could, raising the odds of success as much as possible, and after that it was just a question of the odds.
We can see that luck, which is just an odds game, plays a role in our actions through measurement and calculation of odds. We can't see any indication of direction, nor of god, in these odds.
Scott, you hear people talk about luck, right? Anything that humans cannot control and that is just left up to chance? What is the problem with replacing "luck" with "God" in these cases? You, the doctors, the helicopter pilots, whoever can try to do their utmost but there are still situations where they cannot control every little factor. Is there a difference between saying, "Whoo, boy, that was lucky" and "Thank God?" They are essentially one and the same, in terms of their effect on the world. It is when people are passive in cases where they should take an active role and not leave things up to chance is where this believing in Luck/God makes for trouble.
Luck is just a human emotion making a false interpretation of perfectly natural circumstances.
Let's say two people are rolling dice. Each person rolls three six sided dice, one at a time. The first person rolls a 1, then a 3, then a 5. Ok. The other person rolls a 6, then a 6, then a 6. Wow! They must be lucky right? NO. The odds of rolling a 1 then a 3 then a 5 are the sames as the odds of rolling a 6, then a 6, then a 6. The human brain is just really bad at understanding the true odds of things. Sometimes things happen that the human mind interprets as being very unlikely. In those cases, it is easy to imagine that some supernatural force caused those circumstances.
I disagree. If you know something is unlikely, and it is, then if you retrospectively call it luck you are saying "that was a positive but unlikely occurrence". Sure, sometimes we can be wrong as to whether it really is unlikely, but we don't necessarily need to be.
Also, if you were told you needed to roll a 6 three times in a row or you'd die, then the two possibilities are 1) Roll a 6 three times in a row Probability: 1/216 2) At least one of your rolls had something other than a 6 Probability: 215/216
Hence the first outcome is unlikely compared to the second, and if you then win and stay alive, it's certainly a positive outcome. So you could, if you take lucky as "positive but unlikely", call that outcome "lucky"
Scott, you hear people talk about luck, right? Anything that humans cannot control and that is just left up to chance? What is the problem with replacing "luck" with "God" in these cases? You, the doctors, the helicopter pilots, whoever can try to do their utmost but there are still situations where they cannot control every little factor. Is there a difference between saying, "Whoo, boy, that was lucky" and "Thank God?" They are essentially one and the same, in terms of their effect on the world. It is when people are passive in cases where they should take an active role and not leave things up to chance is where this believing in Luck/God makes for trouble.
As I see it, the difference between good luck and bad luck is random. In all the chaos that is the universe, out of all the possible outcomes, the one I was thinking of/hoping for came to be. That defines good luck. The phrase "thank god", however, is actively stating that a being caused the course of events that just occurred and it wasn't a random occurrence. That's why they aren't replaceable with one another.
EDIT: Didn't realize everyone else had already put their 2 cents in on this .. . Don't I feel useless . . .
Also, if you were told you needed to roll a 6 three times in a row or you'd die, then the two possibilities are 1) Roll a 6 three times in a row Probability: 1/216 2) One of your rolls had something other than a 6 Probability: 215/216
The odds of rolling three sixes in a row are indeed 1/216. What are the odds of rolling a 1 then a 3 then a 5? Well, the odds of rolling a 1 are 1/6. The odds of the next roll being a 3 are 1/6. The odds of the last roll being a 5 are 1/6. Oh look! What I said is true. The odds of rolling a 1, then a 3, then a 5 are the same as the odds of rolling a 6, then a 6, then a 6. They are both equally lucky. It is a psychological problem of human perception and lack of proper statistical thinking that creates the idea that the sixes are lucky and the other roll is not.
2) One of your rolls had something other than a 6 Probability: 215/216
Eh, no. You'd still have to throw two sixes. Which is still 1/36th. Which translates to 6/216th, which is your correct answer.
Technically speaking, if you say "one was not a 6", you're not saying "exactly one was not a 6". The possibility that two had no 6s is not discounted. It would have been better if I had worded it as "at least one", but the way I said it is still not wrong.
Also, 1/36 is wrong there, because you forget that it doesn't matter which die it was that didn't have a 6. You also discounted the 5/6 chance of something not being a 6. The actual probability that "exactly one was not a 6" is (5/6) * (1/6) * (1/6) * 3 = 15/216 = 5/72. But I didn't say "exactly one", and I specifically meant "at least one" (though I didn't need to say so).
The odds of rolling three sixes in a row are indeed 1/216. What are the odds of rolling a 1 then a 3 then a 5? Well, the odds of rolling a 1 are 1/6. The odds of the next roll being a 3 are 1/6. The odds of the last roll being a 5 are 1/6. Oh look! What I said is true. The odds of rolling a 1, then a 3, then a 5 are the same as the odds of rolling a 6, then a 6, then a 6. They are both equally lucky. It is a psychological problem of human perception and lack of proper statistical thinking that creates the idea that the sixes are lucky and the other roll is not.
Both are equally likely, but not equally lucky, since to be lucky an outcome needs to be positive as well as unlikely.
Technically speaking, if you say "one was not a 6", you're not saying "exactly one was not a 6". The possibility that two had no 6s is not discounted. It would have been better if I had worded it as "at least one", but the way I said it is still not wrong.
You said "One not six". _One_, even without the word "exactly" that's pretty definitive. Let me quote you again before the change:
2) One of your rolls had something other than a 6
You can't be vague with a concrete number of things without adding more text like, as you said "at least", or "about", or "at most". Without such indications of vagueness it's exact.
Technically speaking, if you say "one was not a 6", you're not saying "exactly one was not a 6". The possibility that two had no 6s is not discounted. It would have been better if I had worded it as "at least one", but the way I said it is still not wrong.
You said "One not six". _One_, even without the word "exactly" that's pretty definitive. Let me quote you again before the change:
2)Oneof your rolls had something other than a 6
You can't be vague with a concrete number of things without adding more text like, as you said "at least", or "about", or "at most". Without such indications of vagueness it's exact.
This refinement is sometimes needed in formal mathematical discourse because, for example, if you have two apples, you also have one apple, but you do not have exactly one apple.
Sure, the idea of a positive outcome may be arbitary, but it's also essential to our ability to make decisions as human beings.
The point is that there is clearly no support for belief in the supernatural based on the human idea of luck.
I can certainly agree with that. My main problem with the idea of luck is that it makes it easy to go from "that was lucky", which I have no beef with, to "I'm a lucky person, so if I do this, it will go well", which is very, very bad.
However, I don't have a problem with a definition of lucky as "positive but unlikely"
It was implied from point 1 that the other two were sixes. Stop dicking around, you first specified zero none-six, then specifically said one none-six. There was no refinement like that needed for you were talking about exact, definitive numbers, three rolls all being six, three sixes, 6 6 and 6 in that order, reversed and otherwise shuffled, there was no way to mistake what you meant with point one. You then say "One" and only the word "One" in your second point, implying the same concrete use of numbers, not some sudden vague stuff for that would've needed to be specified.
I stand by my point that you were wrong, that you thought everyone makes the unlogical jump from exact to vague in a snap concerning a mathematical question.
People underestimate the importance of superdelegates.
One of the downsides of popular vote is that it does not consider the reasons behind a vote, only the votes themselves. So the person who votes for a candidate because they like their haircut, or because they told a funny joke, or whose platform sounds good but is mostly flash when examined carefully, is counted equally with the person who votes after a careful consideration of the platforms and the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. This creates a problem, because a candidate who tricks 10 people into voting based on silly or misleading things will have more clout than a person who gathers 5 genuine votes made with a full understanding of the issues. Superdelegates can help make sure that this sort of thing is less likely to happen.
People underestimate the importance of superdelegates.
I don't think anyone is underestimating them. We all know that they are the ones who will determine the democratic candidate. Right now Obama and Hillary are in a contest to woo the superdelegates, not the populace.
It was implied from point 1 that the other two were sixes. Stop dicking around, you first specified zero none-six, then specifically said one none-six. There was no refinement like that needed for you were talking about exact, definitive numbers, three rolls all being six, three sixes, 6 6 and 6 in that order, reversed and otherwise shuffled, there was no way to mistake what you meant with point one.
Well, actually, if I rolled three dice and four were sixes, I'd say that was fine and would still meet point 1), so the vagueness is there, it just doesn't matter (the possibility of rolling three dice and getting four sixes is negligible (but it's still there ).
Also, if we're speaking about context, then the other elements of the context were:- -I mentioned only two possibilities, hence 2) would be equivalent to not 1) -I stated the probability as 215/216, implying that what I meant was indeed "at least one"
You then say "One" and only the word "One" in your second point, implying the same concrete use of numbers, not some sudden vague stuff for that would've needed to be specified.
I stand by my point that you were wrong, that you thought everyone makes the unlogical jump from exact to vague in a snap concerning a mathematical question.
If I thought that I wouldn't have modified my original post to "at least one". No, I admit that not everyone would make that jump. It's just that in a mathematical sense, that's what it means. It's obviously better to clarify such that it's easier to understand, but it was mathematically already correct the first time around.
Besides, you should admit that you were wrong on your calculated probability.
Comments
I would say that we need belief as human beings, due to the reasons you've stated above.
I'd say that faith is, in addition to that, an attempt to remove this essential doubt.
Hence belief is essential, but faith is a destructive influence.
In other words, while there is probably such a thing as a "rational belief", faith is, by definition, irrational.
You never hear people saying "I have faith in the Theory of General Relativity", you do hear them saying they believe it.
On the other hand, you very much do hear people saying "I have faith in God".
Hence the distinction between faith and belief is a very useful one, I would say, since it allows us to criticize faith while accepting the necessity of belief.
I think if we take this literally, I said that I'd like to see an example of a death caused by a lack of stupidity. Still, I'll admit that I don't actually want to see such a death at all, but I doubt one would happen anyway.
I can dig it, I'm a goit, but...
Read the same story again, but take it from the perspective of the helicopter pilot. Flying a helicopter is stupidly hard. It takes an incredible amount of training and practice just to be able to hover steadily a few feet off the ground. Flying in any helicopter, even piloted by the most professional pilots, is extremely dangerous. It's even more dangerous during a storm situation where there would be a flood or some such. Imagine if you were the helicopter pilot, braving incredible danger, and using your years of training to save lives from a terrible flood. Now imagine someone coming along and giving all the credit for your hard work to god. I would say to that person "fuck you!" The helicopter pilot is a hero, no god had any part in it.
Think about the radio report. For nearly a century humans have had radio communications technology. Think about all of the hard work put in by thousands upon thousands of people. Think about all the studying, all the effort, all the ingenuity, all the raw physical labor of all those human beings over the course of 100 years that it took to create the wireless communications infrastructure that made that emergency broadcast possible. That amazing feat that our species has been able to accomplish is truly remarkable. To give credit for that to god is to insult every hard working human being who has tried so hard to make this world great.
I can only imagine how doctors feel. They spend how many years of their lives suffering through medical school? Then when they actually manage to save someone's life, the people thank god and couldn't give a shit about the doctor. I don't know how I could be a doctor without punching those people in the face. When a doctor helps you, thank the fucking doctor! They sacrificed how much to be able to extend your life, and you're going to give all the credit to your imaginary friend? Talk about an asshole!
Do you remember this video?
Saying that god sent the radio report, the helicopter, and the rowboat is no different that saying that the guy in this video moved the escalator, the elevator, the train, etc. Give credit where credit is due. If you worked hard on something you wouldn't want someone to insult you and say that some god did all the work.
I mean, if god is the one taking care of all these things, then we don't need to work hard right? Let's just sit on our asses because all the centuries of amazing things that humans have done were really just gods work. I mean, GeekNights is such a great show because god makes it that way, not because we work our fucking asses off recording every goddamn night.
Also, the point Scott just made is great.
...
Wow, too much Red Dwarf does screw with one's writings.
Besides, that's not the point, the point is, because someone was stupid, we missed out on Rym and Scott having a good laugh about one the greatest things to come out of the United Kingdom.
That's as many as four tens, and that's terrible.
I believe that plants grow. I plant a plant, and measure it every day. Every day the length measured increases. This same thing happens with every plant no matter who measures it. Yes, there is a chance this is not true. Maybe the plant isn't real, and it's all the Matrix. Maybe the plant is evil and it has magic powers that can cause every length measuring device to return incorrect results. Maybe the plant grows in a way that causes an optical illusion that results in incorrect measurements. The only thing I am 100% certain of is cogito, ergo sum. However, I have sufficient evidence that I can safely believe that plants grow.
If I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, that is a matter of faith. There is no evidence that suggests the flying spaghetti monster exists. Is the FMS possible? Yes, there is an incredibly small chance the FSM is real. The odds of that are the same as the odds of the plant using magic to screw with my ruler. However, if those odds are so small that I'm willing to believe the plant grows, despite the possibility that it does not, then I'm willing to disbelieve the FSM if the only possibility of him existing is that small.
If you say "that was lucky", then you're saying "that was an unlikely but positive outcome", which is not unreasonable to say. But the fact that people can also say things like "I'm a lucky guy" is what I really dislike about the term, since such things are just stupid. There isn't any real difference, but people say "Thank God for the food on our table"; they don't say "Wow, we're lucky to have food on our table" that often since the fact is that they worked to get food on their table. Well, I'd argue here that the very nature of faith encourages this kind of passivity. If you tell someone to have faith in God, I think it's encouraging them to rely on the fact that God is there, and not do things on their own.
Yeah, that's an easier definition than mine.
On the basis of that, I guess we can agree that faith is an inherently negative quality in a human being?
Let's say two people are rolling dice. Each person rolls three six sided dice, one at a time. The first person rolls a 1, then a 3, then a 5. Ok. The other person rolls a 6, then a 6, then a 6. Wow! They must be lucky right? NO. The odds of rolling a 1 then a 3 then a 5 are the sames as the odds of rolling a 6, then a 6, then a 6. The human brain is just really bad at understanding the true odds of things. Sometimes things happen that the human mind interprets as being very unlikely. In those cases, it is easy to imagine that some supernatural force caused those circumstances.
There are many other psychological things that influence these sorts of feelings. For example, people are much more likely to remember times they feel lucky than when they don't. This is why psychics using cold-reading can make so many incorrect guesses and still fool people. People remember the hits and forget the misses. You remember the time you bought a winning lottery ticket, but not the hundreds of times you lost.
There's nothing wrong with saying the words "thank god". I actually say it a lot. I say "thank god", "god damnit", and often just "god". That's fine. It's just words. What is problematic is when someone truly believes in some supernatural force. That is the dangerous thinking that can lead to poor, and occasionally dangerous, decision making. If you claim to believe in the existence of a supernatural force, but you don't take it into account when you make decisions, then I argue that you don't really believe in it.
We can see that luck, which is just an odds game, plays a role in our actions through measurement and calculation of odds. We can't see any indication of direction, nor of god, in these odds.
Also, if you were told you needed to roll a 6 three times in a row or you'd die, then the two possibilities are
1) Roll a 6 three times in a row
Probability: 1/216
2) At least one of your rolls had something other than a 6
Probability: 215/216
Hence the first outcome is unlikely compared to the second, and if you then win and stay alive, it's certainly a positive outcome.
So you could, if you take lucky as "positive but unlikely", call that outcome "lucky"
EDIT: Didn't realize everyone else had already put their 2 cents in on this .. . Don't I feel useless . . .
Also, 1/36 is wrong there, because you forget that it doesn't matter which die it was that didn't have a 6. You also discounted the 5/6 chance of something not being a 6.
The actual probability that "exactly one was not a 6" is
(5/6) * (1/6) * (1/6) * 3 = 15/216 = 5/72.
But I didn't say "exactly one", and I specifically meant "at least one" (though I didn't need to say so).
Both are equally likely, but not equally lucky, since to be lucky an outcome needs to be positive as well as unlikely.
My main problem with the idea of luck is that it makes it easy to go from "that was lucky", which I have no beef with, to "I'm a lucky person, so if I do this, it will go well", which is very, very bad.
However, I don't have a problem with a definition of lucky as "positive but unlikely"
I stand by my point that you were wrong, that you thought everyone makes the unlogical jump from exact to vague in a snap concerning a mathematical question.
One of the downsides of popular vote is that it does not consider the reasons behind a vote, only the votes themselves. So the person who votes for a candidate because they like their haircut, or because they told a funny joke, or whose platform sounds good but is mostly flash when examined carefully, is counted equally with the person who votes after a careful consideration of the platforms and the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. This creates a problem, because a candidate who tricks 10 people into voting based on silly or misleading things will have more clout than a person who gathers 5 genuine votes made with a full understanding of the issues. Superdelegates can help make sure that this sort of thing is less likely to happen.
Also, if we're speaking about context, then the other elements of the context were:-
-I mentioned only two possibilities, hence 2) would be equivalent to not 1)
-I stated the probability as 215/216, implying that what I meant was indeed "at least one" If I thought that I wouldn't have modified my original post to "at least one". No, I admit that not everyone would make that jump. It's just that in a mathematical sense, that's what it means.
It's obviously better to clarify such that it's easier to understand, but it was mathematically already correct the first time around.
Besides, you should admit that you were wrong on your calculated probability.