If probabiltiies were certainites we would have half of the science we have now.

Scientist A : that's not likely given X blahblah
Scientist B : Well lets give it a go anyway, who knows.
Scientist B : Crap, you're right
Scientist C : hey wait a min, check this section of the results.
Scientist A : hmm, this could work with that other thing.
Scientist B : woohoo !

or the same type of thing with the 'lets give it a go' working out on the thing it was not likely to work out on given X.


shit imagine math if people gave up trying to disprove proofs. a proof IS certainty.

We're talking about the probability that a person can accurately predict something about which he admittedly hasn't the first fragment of a conception.

Your scenario has to be rewritten:

Scientist A : I think X blahblah
Scientist B : Interesting. That flies in the face of everything we've learned up till now. Do you have any evidence?
Scientist A : Absolutely none! I just made it up right now.
Scientist B : Well how can it possibly be correct then? Let's stick to building things up from what we know and what's likely based on that.
Scientist C : Now hold on, B! A may have just invented that idea out of thin air based on no evidence whatsoever, but we can't conclude that it's wrong.
Scientist B : Well by that logic I could come up with something out of thin air myself, and would you say that we should waste even an instant considering it?
Scientist C : I try to keep my mind considering all things with equal possibility until they are definitively proven false.
Scientist B : Well I'm more interested in theories based on evidence.
Scientist C : Oh, B. You fool. If we'd concentrated only on things that were more likely than not then where would we be today? Why we wouldn't even have math.
Scientist A : Well I'm going to go develop my theory of X. It will require invalidating much of what we know so far about nature so I'd better get on it.
Scientist B : Enjoy yourself. I'll be ignoring you due to the virtual certainty that your theory is wrong. If you try to teach your theories to the children in place of the reason-based work I've accomplished I'll write editorials. Scathing editorials.
Scientist C : I shall split my time equally between observing the actions of both. If B writes scathing editorials I'll try to play the part of the peacemaker. We're all equal under the eyes of what may be a higher being, and no theory is any worse than any others unless 100% proof negative is achieved.

Are we ? I thought we were talking about science.

You added the part about not having the first fragment. My senario starts with A suggesting its not likely, not that it flies in the face of/no evidence... just unlikely.

So unless you wish to state no benefit has come from exploring the unlikey... ~shrug.

The concept of God goes beyond mere unlikeliness. The likelihood of the validity of the concept is vanishingly small.

If you'll indulge a bit of shameful sophistry,...
1/3 = 0.333...
2/3 = 0.666...
but
3/3 != 0.999...
rather,
3/3 = 1
God is the 0.0...1 that stands in the way of mathematics.

I would say that no scientific advancement has come from exploring God except maybe by accident.
But then again, scientific advancement isn't necessarily the highest goal of humanity. Religion and the concept of God enriches our culture and society for sure.

God ? Why you still typing about that... I clearly said science. and I meant science. nothing in my previous 2 posts had anything to do with god.

I'm medium drunk right now, but I think I lost the line of the conversation. What about science?

Exactly !

Just keep your eyes glued to the Omega constant, and let me know if there are any big changes.