UQ in this theories page

On this page there is a list of coubter evidence to a theory containing the following questions: "Who gives a boat to a stranger?" and "What are the odds she was in both Australia and L.A. with Hurley, who, years later, she would coincidentally be in a plane crash with and then start a relationship with?"

  • The first, maybe it represented a bad memory to her (maybe her husband died on The Elizabeth or something else) or she is just generous.
  • The second, the odds are as big as the odds that she met Desmond off-island and then ended up on the same island he did, as big as Jack and Desmonds' meetings both on and off Island, as big as Desmond meeting Charlie before the crash and after the crash, as big as Jack and Claire being siblings who end up on a same plane on a same day with the corpse of their deceased father also on the plane, as big as the odd that Locke's father was a conman who conned Sawyer's parents, and then they both end up on the Island with Anthony Cooper there. For further explaining that its not a really big odd, at least not on Lost, check Coincidence and Character connections. This is directed to the user who reorganized this theory page. --Orhan94 16:03, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
  • Agreed, there are certainly a lot of interconnections between characters on Lost, but there is definitely reason to believe that not all the unlikely relations in this show are mere coincidences, especially when there are characters that seem motivated to intervene in the lives of particular individuals. For example, Abaddon tells Locke to go to Australia, then Abaddon is responsible for sending a freighter to the island where Locke landed when his flight from Australia crashes. Richard keeping track of Locke for years, trying to recruit him to a science camp. Desmond needs a boat - a stranger gives him a boat. The extreme unlikelihood of these coincidences is on a different level than Desmond passing by Charlie on a street in London, or Jack having a brief exchange with a stranger (Desmond) at a track. Extremely improbable events occuring together are legitimate evidence for a non-random relationship between events. This is the basis for inferential statistics [1], which is the basis of many disciplines in science, including the physical and social sciences. Not only this, but even within the show, non-randomness is consistently used to justify actions (i.e. Locke is regarded as special because he can hear Jacob - which apparently most of the others cannot, he is given a test of choosing the right items from a selection of items - these are all probability tests). Without relying on the extreme unlikelihood of particular events as evidence, one could not infer that the system failure had anything to do with the Swan explosion. It would just be a coincidence that the system failure happened to coincide with the destruction of the Swan Babushka27 07:21, 10 July 2008 (PDT)

I can't help but disagree with the way this page is set up now. If it's amenable to all theories, then there is no comfortable room for it to be edited properly. Crystalline9 23:33, 5 August 2008 (PDT)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.