At what point do coincidences stop being coincidences?

[Sarpedon]

Is there an accepted method to determine when it is sound to think that coincidences aren't random? I'm talking in every day life, where things happen without lab conditions, and the mind makes connections between things in a free form way. We all know the mind loves to make connections, but is there a point where one can say, "aha! there is some unseen link?" because sometimes there is, isn't there?

 

[Bomb#20]

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action. - Auric Goldfinger

 

[Politesse]

Is there an accepted method to determine when it is sound to think that coincidences aren't random? I'm talking in every day life, where things happen without lab conditions, and the mind makes connections between things in a free form way. We all know the mind loves to make connections, but is there a point where one can say, "aha! there is some unseen link?" because sometimes there is, isn't there?

When you can demonstrate what the unseen link is, obviously.

 

[bilby]

Is there an accepted method to determine when it is sound to think that coincidences aren't random? I'm talking in every day life, where things happen without lab conditions, and the mind makes connections between things in a free form way. We all know the mind loves to make connections, but is there a point where one can say, "aha! there is some unseen link?" because sometimes there is, isn't there?

Well it's a process.

A coincidence is the inspiration to hypothesise that an unknown cause is in play.

A hypothesis is the inspiration to conduct rigorous analysis of events.

A rigorous analysis that doesn't cause the coincidence to disappear might confirm or refute your initial hypothesis; If it refutes the hypothesis, a new hypothesis should be formed.

If you can't (or won't) perform a rigorous analysis, then you abdicate your right to claim that the coincidence has any significance.

Of course, you can believe any crazy shit you like; But you shouldn't expect others to accept your crazy belief as fact (even provisionally) unless you can provide more evidence than mere informal coincidence.

 

[fromderinside]

The sky is cloudy. Do you see wet streets? No. Coincidence?

 

[Lion IRC]

At what point do coincidences stop being coincidences?

"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare."

 

[bilby]

At what point do coincidences stop being coincidences?

"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare."

View attachment 29546

Sure; But it would almost certainly take an infinite amount of time to locate any given large text within the infinite garbage thus produced.

And as we are incapable of experiencing such infinities, the whole theorem is a mere mathematical curiosity, useful only for illustrating the oddities that arise when you start considering infinities.

 

[fromderinside]

Probability of coincidence: Sagan Inflation: trillions and trillions

 

[Treedbear]

An intersection of two lines on a plane is just a coincidence. An intersection of two lines in space is more than a coincidence. An intersection of any three or more lines is more than just a coincidence.

 

[fromderinside]

Probability can be a harsh mistress. Something associated can be just coincidental.

 

[bilby]

Probability can be a harsh mistress. Something associated can be just coincidental.

You only said that because it's a full moon.

 

[Tharmas]

Probability can be a harsh mistress. Something associated can be just coincidental.

You only said that because it's a full moon.

Well, I heard a newscaster on one of the local stations a while back explain that of course the moon affects us. It causes the tides, she said, and we're 98% water. You can't argue with logic like that.

 

[Bronzeage]

Everything that happens, happens at a particular moment in time. Since there is only one moment in time, at a time, a lot of happenings have to share a moment.

 

[fromderinside]

Unless one goes to secondary motives trajectory isn't coincidental said the operationalist.

 

[fromderinside]

Probability can be a harsh mistress. Something associated can be just coincidental.

You only said that because it's a full moon.

Well, I heard a newscaster on one of the local stations a while back explain that of course the moon affects us. It causes the tides, she said, and we're 98% water. You can't argue with logic like that.

Yes, and Rome was built in a day.

 

[fromderinside]

Probability can be a harsh mistress. Something associated can be just coincidental.

You only said that because it's a full moon.

Well, I heard a newscaster on one of the local stations a while back explain that of course the moon affects us. It causes the tides, she said, and we're 98% water. You can't argue with logic like that.

Don't care to. The moon doesn't affect us, gravity causes tides.

 

[Bobinius]

Is there an accepted method to determine when it is sound to think that coincidences aren't random? I'm talking in every day life, where things happen without lab conditions, and the mind makes connections between things in a free form way. We all know the mind loves to make connections, but is there a point where one can say, "aha! there is some unseen link?" because sometimes there is, isn't there?

We always use the same method, the scientific one. I don't think there are any shortcuts or any valid non-scientific methods. So the accepted method is the scientific one. This doesn't imply a lab. In everyday life you just have to be systematic, note everything, see if it is more likely than chance. If it is not, it is called coincidence. By the way, everything you observe happening at the same time is co-incidence. What you want is causal correlation. There is no everyday, unbiased heuristic for that.

 

[bilby]

Once is misfortune, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is there an accepted method to determine when it is sound to think that coincidences aren't random? I'm talking in every day life, where things happen without lab conditions, and the mind makes connections between things in a free form way. We all know the mind loves to make connections, but is there a point where one can say, "aha! there is some unseen link?" because sometimes there is, isn't there?

I don't think I can answer your question directly, but I do want to mention 4 related things.

1. Convention in statistics is that a p value of 5% or less is significant.

2. I will start with a concrete example of a problematic conclusion: Richard Hoagland has this idea that there is a structure on Mars that is a face. When I look at this question, I ask what are the odds that any series of contiguous natural structures on any planet or moon we've observed will form to look anthropomorphic under special computer enhancement? We only report out the things that seem abnormal, not all the normal observations over the broadest set of observations. So, is your mind asking the right question?

3. Can you make a significant correlation? Is it dependent upon your method so you could try slightly different methods and it still is a correlation? Is it dependent upon a single data point so that if you remove the data point, it's no longer a correlation?

4. I tend to accept things when there are multiple coincidences from different "dimensions" congregating on a conclusion. This is something I've used a lot in genealogy (and genetic genealogy).

 

[steve_bank]

It seems a coincidence that you periodically see a dark SUV around with blacked out windows.

When men in black with dark sunglasses get out and drag you away it is no longer coincidence.