I guess my point is that the concept of the known is not fixed, it's always been changing and it will always continue to change. In a broad way, that mutability of knowledge (not truth itself, but the lens through which we access it) is the defining principle of what Science is. You're framing this in a context where you get to define the bounds of what is sane and unsane, which I think is unfair. There is a great deal about the world that I do not understand and will not understand. I think that makes it intellectually honest to reserve a space in my snapshot of 'plausible outcomes' to account for that which is currently unexplainable.
I'm more interested in the philosophical implications (to you as an English professor I would say 'epistemological') than the math but if you can indulge me briefly and start with (for purposes of argument) the assumption that all outcomes obtain -- what does that say about probability? What does it say about individual agency? By no means do I think there's just one answer to these questions -- I'm sure you've got some interesting takes of your own. Earlier you described conspiracy theories as a comforting delusion, part of a long human tradition of creating meaning and purpose out of the ineffable. I think of them in simpler terms. If the entire universe is one big mesh of disparate agents trying to impress their will on their immediate surroundings, than wherever there are concentrations of overlapping intention all pushing/willing/hoping in the same direction we're likely to find movement, however minute, in response to that.
The mutability of knowledge is certainly a defining principle of scientific study, but in the absence of new information, the presently known remains our best understanding of the world and universe in which we live, and therefore it remains the footing from which we must operate. What else is there, until we learn something new? We can reserve intellectual space for that which we deem inexplicable and beyond our current comprehension, but we do ourselves no favors by ignoring the ground beneath our feet. As a species, we craft value systems, social mores, laws, and the like from a shared understanding of what is known. When our understanding of the known shifts, we update those value systems, social mores, laws, etc. in accordance with our refreshed understanding of our world.
I'm attempting to be conscientious about KF.com rules around discussion of current events/politics, so I'll frame an example this way. There's not a lot of sense in granting Flat Earthers a seat at the legislative table simply because they've reserved a considerable amount of their intellectual space for that which
they deem inexplicable, in spite of all available evidence to the contrary. That's not a valuable kind of open-mindedness, and it would be deeply unwise to charge such persons with stewardship of the FAA, for instance. Instead, we should charge the administration of such an important agency to persons who recognize and understand the
known physical laws that govern our world. After all, Newtonian physics does not meet any kind of reasonable threshold for skepticism in 2025. At least, not until we learn something new.
And more to the point, the NBA draft lottery likewise does not meet any kind of reasonable threshold for skepticism. The stakes aren't as high as airline safety, but they are still quite high for the various stakeholders involved, all of whom have a vested interest in the fair execution of that lottery. After all, if the game was "rigged" in your favor one year, it could be "rigged" against you in every other year. This is why its
incredibly challenging to get the wealthy owners of sports franchises to vote for the removal of one of their own; they operate with a shared understanding that safety for one is safety for all, and in the inverse, that what threatens one can threaten all.
So while the NBA may not march every member of every ownership group, every front office staffer, every coach, player, and fan to the stage for the ping pong ball selections, what we
know about the draft lottery, its agreed-upon logic, the representatives and stakeholders who witness its administration, and the monumental difficulties that would exist in executing and covering up a lottery grift of the size and scope being suggested here by many, it is folly to craft an argument assuming a "rigged" lottery process that doesn't strain credulity. It doesn't mean you can't craft that argument, of course. Any mind is free to think as it wills. But... what's the point?
I mean, I
can argue until I'm blue in the face that I'm being "scammed" about any number of things, like, say, that my morning tea is not authentic and does not, in fact, come from Sri Lanka, despite the claims on its labels and the supply chain data that supports its transit from that part of the world to my kitchen table. But what would be the point of such an argument? Yes, I was not personally privy to the tea leaves that were plucked from a Sri Lankan farm and then shipped overseas, but my existing insight into the tea world and free trade, as well as the strong reputation of
Steven Smith Teamaker, suggests that it's fair to say I
know from where my tea is being sourced. It would strain credulity to say that I'm being scammed by Smith Teas simply because there
may be some plausible outcome I have not yet considered.
