Return to Answer

Though note that a coin being fair and a coin being weighted are both designed, because essentially all coins are designed. Calling the latter "rigged" suggests intent (i.e. "more" design). In the case of a coin, being weighted may be intentional (whereas being fair may merely be a side effect of design). But this isn't, as such, a principle we can generalise to determine whether something was designed (though it may relate to other such principles). Naturally-forming things could lean towards some outcomes above others due to simple asymmetries in how those things formed. Coins are usually designed to be roughly symmetrical (fair), but any given natural forming process may or may not produce symmetry. And some natural things (e.g. physical laws or physical constants) may not have formed at all - they may just always have been that way.

Though note that a coin being fair and a coin being weighted are both designed, because essentially all coins are designed. Calling the latter "rigged" suggests intent (i.e. "more" design). In the case of a coin, being weighted may be intentional (whereas being fair may merely be a side effect of design*). But this isn't, as such, a principle we can generalise to determine whether something was designed (though it may relate to other such principles). Naturally-forming things could lean towards some outcomes above others due to simple asymmetries in how those things formed. Coins are usually designed to be roughly symmetrical (fair), but any given natural forming process may or may not produce symmetry. And some natural things (e.g. physical laws or physical constants) may not have formed at all - they may just always have been that way.

* If we compare this to e.g. dice, those are usually designed specifically to be fair, since producing each side with equal probability is the main use of a dice (whereas the main use of a coin is as currency).

A coin landing on heads 100 times in a row might only "call out" for an explanation if one has some existing beliefs about the coin, creating the expectation that it would land on heads roughly half the time. Without such beliefs or expectations, neither explanation "calls out" for an explanation any more than the other.

Though we could consider explanatory power, such as having greater predictive power, fewer surprising facts and fewer additional claims to retrofit the explanation to the evidence.

A coin landing on heads 100 times in a row might only "call out" for an explanation if one has some existing beliefs about the coin, creating the (failed) expectation that it would land on heads roughly half the time. Without such beliefs or expectations, neither explanation "calls out" for an explanation any more than the other.

Though we could define it in terms of having high explanatory power, such as having greater predictive power, fewer surprising facts and fewer additional claims to retrofit the explanation to the evidence.

We wouldn't say e.g. the coin being fair is unlikely, therefore it was zapped into existence by a wizard (unless you already have strong evidence that said wizard exists and has a habit of zapping coin-like things into existence). We wouldn't say that even if we didn't know how weighted coins could come about.

We wouldn't say e.g. the coin being fair is unlikely, therefore it was zapped into existence by a unicorn (unless you already have strong evidence that said unicorn exists and has a habit of zapping coin-like things into existence). We wouldn't say that even if we didn't know how weighted coins could come about.