But McWhorter errs in assigning another cause of this profligate variety: “In fact, there is a coherent explanation.… That explanation is, quite simply, chance.” But “Chance” is not an explanation for anything: chance is the word we use for happenings we can’t explain. … Consider the opening toss before a football game, which determines who kicks off. Such tosses are governed by “chance” from the point of view of the players and referees involved. But whether the coin comes up heads or tails is, in fact, determined by the force and angle of the ref’s flip, the air resistance offered to the coin, the gusts of wind that impact it, the participants’ movements, and so on. If anyone involved could exactly determine the influence of all of those factors and could rapidly calculate them, they could say for sure whether the coin would land on heads or tails. It is the participants’ inability to do such calculations that makes the coin flip, from their point of view, chance, and a fair way to decide who kicks off. But “chance” is certainly not an explanation for why the coin landed as it did: it is an admission that the participants can’t explain it.
Well, I am pretty sure that McWhorter knew the meaning and implications of the word chance when he chose to use it. The reviewer does not refute his use of the term by elaborating on said meaning and implications. I assume the reviewer thinks what he says about a coin flip represents a coherent explanation of why the outcome of the coin flip is thought to be a matter of chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment