Is There Such Thing As "luck?"

[Showmeproof]

Is there such thing as bad luck? I got into an argument with my brother over this. I stated that people create their own luck and the superstitious belief in luck was absurd. He then pointed out that if someone randomnly gets cancer, that is considered bad luck. He said there are people who eat right, take care of themselves and still get cancer. They did not cause the cancer. They just have bad luck. In all honesty, I did not know how to refute his argument. I was just curious if people had an opinion on whether or not "bad" or "good" luck really exists.

[Rasmus]

"bad luck" exits in the way that there are coincidences that one would rather not be subject to. So what?

I see no reason to assign any significance to it. On the contrary, it would be quite remarkable if by eating right, exercising, etc. you could somehow avoid all coincidences that might still give you cancer.

So, I do think there are coincidences. I do not think there is anything like "fait".

[Tanja]

He said there are people who eat right, take care of themselves and still get cancer. They did not cause the cancer. They just have bad luck. In all honesty, I did not know how to refute his argument.

I am not quite sure I understand what there was to refute - what was your side of the argument?

[RSLancastr]

Do I believe that "luck" exists? It would depend on how you define "luck."

If by "luck" you mean something other than random chance, then: no.

[Showmeproof]

I am not quite sure I understand what there was to refute - what was your side of the argument?


Well, I was trying to say that people create their own luck. So, for example, if someone smokes, eats bad, and in general has a bad lifestyle, and they get cancer, we can say that they might be the cause of their cancer to a certain extent.

But, there are people that exercise, eat right, take care of themselves and still get cancer. If they were not the cause of their cancer bc they took all precautions, can we say it was just bad luck.

Since I was saying bad luck doesnt exist and people create their own luck, the 2nd paragraph sort of contradicts what I said bc the above person did not cause their cancer (bad luck).

[Fiona]

The phrase "people create their own luck" is incoherent. Might that be part of the problem ?

[Showmeproof]

The phrase "people create their own luck" is incoherent. Might that be part of the problem ?

It was just a misuse of words. I meant people create their own destiny. My brother is too stupid to realize the contradiction within that statement lol. So, that had really nothing to do with it.

[Fiona]

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you appear to be saying you are puzzled as to why you did not win an argument with an internally contradictory stance. Is that right? :confused:

[Showmeproof]

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you appear to be saying you are puzzled as to why you did not win an argument with an internally contradictory stance. Is that right? :confused:

Well, even though it was a misuse of words, I still know what I meant. His idea was that a black cloud follows some people and they just have bad luck. My idea was that people create their own destiny or lives. My not winning the argument had nothing to do with my contradictory statement, as he probably didnt know there was an inherent contradiction in my statement, and thus, try and use it against me. Either way, even if I said "people create their own destinies" and didnt use the word "luck" I still would of lost the argument.

You are making it sound I lost the argument bc of the contradiction within my statement. That is not the case.

[Bob Klase]

Well, I was trying to say that people create their own luck. So, for example, if someone smokes, eats bad, and in general has a bad lifestyle, and they get cancer, we can say that they might be the cause of their cancer to a certain extent.

Perhaps you should just change your wording to "people can reduce their chances of certain bad things (such as cancer) happening.

Since I was saying bad luck doesnt exist and people create their own luck, the 2nd paragraph sort of contradicts what I said bc the above person did not cause their cancer (bad luck).

So they had bad luck. A chance happening happened to them despite their attempts to reduce the chance of it happening. That's why it's a 'chance' happening.

You can, to some extent "make your own luck" using your examples of eating right, etc. You can't eliminate every chance of something bad happening to you. So when something bad happens to you that was completely out of your control, it was by definition bad luck.

[Fiona]

Can you show me how it is not the case? I honestly believe it makes no difference if you use the word "luck" or the word "destiny" Neither statement is true.

[Showmeproof]

Can you show me how it is not the case? I honestly believe it makes no difference if you use the word "luck" or the word "destiny" Neither statement is true.

Okay, so elaborate. Give me your wisdom.

[Tanja]

His idea was that a black cloud follows some people and they just have bad luck. My idea was that people create their own destiny or lives.

Isn't it just pointless to argue one side or the other, when it's fairly obvious that neither side is 100% correct?

[Fiona]

Well what Bob Klase said, really. Luck is defined as a chance happening. It is incoherent to say you can make your own, since by definition it would not be a chance happening if you could.

[Arkayik]

As pattern seeking mammals, we create our luck, because we so define it.

[PBTree]

Is there such thing as bad luck? I got into an argument with my brother over this. I stated that people create their own luck and the superstitious belief in luck was absurd. He then pointed out that if someone randomnly gets cancer, that is considered bad luck. He said there are people who eat right, take care of themselves and still get cancer. They did not cause the cancer. They just have bad luck. In all honesty, I did not know how to refute his argument. I was just curious if people had an opinion on whether or not "bad" or "good" luck really exists.

luck:
–noun 1. the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities: eg. With my luck I'll probably get pneumonia.

If your brother is stating that luck (see above) is something that can be given (eg. Good luck in the game tonight), then I think he hasn't thought it through.
1.1 billion chinese all believe in joss.
1.1 billion chinese all believe that red is lucky.
1.1 billion chinese believe that the number 8 is lucky.
1.1 billion chinese believe that if you put your furniture in a different spot, you will be lucky.
Most of those 1.1 billion chinese follow those beliefs but still don't have two cents to rub together.
Must be lots of bad joss over there. :nope:

{I'm guessing the population}

I prefer to think of it as 'happenstance'.

:)

[Pope130]

I'll throw in two quotes on this:

"I believe in luck, and hard work, and the harder I work, the luckier I get."

"Luck is a noise that people who do not prepare make at people who do." Heinlein.

[Showmeproof]

Thanks for everyones response :)

[Showmeproof]

Isn't it just pointless to argue one side or the other, when it's fairly obvious that neither side is 100% correct?

I guess you are correct. BUT, me and my brother do not get along. Hell, we havent really talked in over 3 years except for today. He is an a$$h*le. So, when we do argue, I like to be right. I guess it is my own hang-up.

[Richard Masters]

The problem with the argument is one of equivocation.

Skeptics see luck as probability / regression to the mean. Others see it as karmatic phenomena.

When you are saying you make your own luck, you are saying you are responsible for increasing your probability of good outcomes through strategic thinking / actions. Your brother is discussing the probability of outcomes that you have absolutely no control over.

In reality you are arguing about different things. Until you both define luck equally, you cannot resolve the argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

[cyborg]

Luck is that beyond your immediate control.

[Ladewig]

I guess you are correct. BUT, me and my brother do not get along. Hell, we havent really talked in over 3 years except for today.

I get along very well with my brother (even after settling two estates, which is often an acute test of families). I guess I must be lucky.

He is an a$$h*le.

I subscribe to the philosophy that if you personally know more than three complete a-holes, the problem may be you rather than all those other people.

[Bob Klase]

luck:
–noun 1. the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities: eg. With my luck I'll probably get pneumonia.

The problem with the argument is one of equivocation

The problem is one of definitions. There are more definitions to the word than the one PBTree posted.

I don't think either one is using ambiguity arising from the misleading use of a word (equivocation). They're just using two different definitions which can both be correct.

[PBTree]

The problem is one of definitions. There are more definitions to the word than the one PBTree posted.

I don't think either one is using ambiguity arising from the misleading use of a word (equivocation). They're just using two different definitions which can both be correct.

Whilst that is true, I still think that one word force is what defines the word luck in the majority of cases.

Wishing someone good luck, is a way of wishing some sort of force to that person, so that they are winners/successful.
Horseshoes can't be put upside down, otherwise something runs out. What is that supposed something?
Rubbing the bhudda's stomach puts luck into you,
Rubbing a rabbit's foot (he had four, didn't do him any good) on your favourite golf club, imparts luck to it and means you will hit the ball better.

I would have to think, that assumes 'luck' is a physical thing.

If luck is not a physical thing, then wishing it on someone, is a waste of time. If it is a physical thing, then we should be able to see it.

This could be where I make my millions. I will build a 'luck'ometer' and put it up on the web.

"Send me $5 and I will send you one. Luck is like electricity, plug yourself into it and you will find out if you have luck running around inside your body."

Sounds like something the superstitious would buy. hmmmm..... :)

[Puppycow]

Is there such thing as bad luck? I got into an argument with my brother over this. I stated that people create their own luck and the superstitious belief in luck was absurd. He then pointed out that if someone randomnly gets cancer, that is considered bad luck. He said there are people who eat right, take care of themselves and still get cancer. They did not cause the cancer. They just have bad luck. In all honesty, I did not know how to refute his argument. I was just curious if people had an opinion on whether or not "bad" or "good" luck really exists.

It depends what one means by "luck." Used in the sense that your brother seems to mean it (random uncontrollable events that either benefit or harm a person), I would say that it indeed exists. And some people happen to get more than their share of good luck or bad luck. But not because of lucky charms or superstitious practices or fate or favour of disfavour of the gods.

[Richard Masters]

The problem is one of definitions. There are more definitions to the word than the one PBTree posted.

I don't think either one is using ambiguity arising from the misleading use of a word (equivocation). They're just using two different definitions which can both be correct.

That's what equivocation means.

[skeptigirl]

There is such a thing as luck in the same way there are cancer clusters that are coincidental. Circumstances will result in some people being better off than other people unrelated to their abilities. For example being born to a rich family or a poor one, being born in the US vs Bangladesh and so on. Someone wins lotteries, I call that lucky.

But if you meant it in some deterministic sense, that would imply magical etiology. In that sense, show me the evidence. I doubt you can.

[skeptigirl]

The problem with the argument is one of equivocation.

Skeptics see luck as probability / regression to the mean. Others see it as karmatic phenomena.

When you are saying you make your own luck, you are saying you are responsible for increasing your probability of good outcomes through strategic thinking / actions. Your brother is discussing the probability of outcomes that you have absolutely no control over.

In reality you are arguing about different things. Until you both define luck equally, you cannot resolve the argument....Exactly.

[CFLarsen]

The Luck Factor (http://www.richardwiseman.com/books/luckfactor.html), by Richard Wiseman

[Cuddles]

"Luck is just probability taken personally."

Can't remember who said that first.

[Pup]

Let's look at some random activity like coin tosses. We're trying to get heads.

The guy who makes his own luck has learned how to cheat so he can toss heads every time.

The guy who's lucky through no effort of his own is the one who, through random chance, gets nine heads out of ten. After enough attempts, someone has to do it, but we say he's "lucky" because it was him.

No real woo there. Where the woo sets in is when luck is used as a predictor: "He's lucky," meaning good things will probably happen to him randomly in the future, because they have in the past.

Unless luck is being used in the sense of learning how to manipulate things like the cheater above, the fellow who randomly tosses nine heads out of ten is no more likely to toss heads on his next throw than anyone else.

[I Ratant]

I'll throw in two quotes on this:

"I believe in luck, and hard work, and the harder I work, the luckier I get."

"Luck is a noise that people who do not prepare make at people who do." Heinlein.

Or, "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity".
All the other (usually bad) things that happen are just ..... bad luck. :)

[I Ratant]

"Great intellects are skeptical” Friedrich Nietzsche"
.
We are, aren't we! :)

[Bob Klase]

I don't think either one is using ambiguity arising from the misleading use of a word (equivocation). They're just using two different definitions which can both be correct.

That's what equivocation means.

But I don't think either definition is misleading in the context it's being used.

the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context as they go in such a way to achieve equivocation by treating distinct meanings of the word as equivalent.

It's only misleading because in this case each is consistantly applying their own definition to the other's side of the argument. As neither appears to be shifting their definition I'm not convinced it qualifies as equivocation.

[Richard Masters]

The way I understand it, equivocation need not be intentional, but I could be mistaken. But under your definition of equivocation, I agree that you are right.

[schlitt]

With your brother’s example, the key factor is the causal agent is beyond obvious perception. We can see the factors that we think have a correlation as being ruled out to a certain extent (I.e. He lead a healthy life), so we see the cancer as being something random (bad luck), but what we might fail to realize is some other cause which is beyond our knowledge of the situation. The cancer did have a cause, though probably not something we could easily point to as something known traditionally as a cause. This puts the situation beyond the control of the participant, since their actions cannot be based upon avoidance of a known cause. Because of this, the situation could be viewed as “unlucky”, since not everyone would find themselves in this situation, with the same causal agents. If every event (encompassing absolutely everything in existence) leading up to the situation could be understood with its cause and effect, then the situation could be understood as to why it happened to that person, and why not to another person. This is impossible however, so we use terms such a luck to replace our lack of capacity to understand this.

[Fiona]

@ schlitt. What an optimistic view :). Do you say that if all causes and sequences of events were known then we could avoid all bad outcomes? I think some people would still be unlucky.

[cyborg]

Do you say that if all causes and sequences of events were known then we could avoid all bad outcomes?

That assumes you can do something to affect the causality of the system in some way - which you probably don't have the power to do.

[schlitt]

That assumes you can do something to affect the causality of the system in some way - which you probably don't have the power to do.

Agreed, you are the result of the causal system. (Ultimately)
So while you may have some conscious processes which lead you to take precautionary actions (Like eating healthy), it is the causal agents beyond your power to take conscious action against, which people see as unlucky, or lucky. This may be due to lack of knowledge, or beyond control entirely even if you were aware of the knowledge.

Fiona, if we were able to understand the cause effect system as a whole, we have an insight into the why of perceived negative or positive events. So luck while we could still term it as luck, it becomes much less mysterious and seemingly random. Since we do not have the capacity for this knowledge however, terming things as "luck" and stopping there, seems appropriate enough. :)

[Soapy Sam]

Terry Pratchett made a comment somewhere about how we view it as a miracle when someone , for some improbable reason, narrowly fails to catch a plane which then crashes; yet we do not say it is miraculous when, despite a late start and contrary traffic, someone else just manages to catch it...

[blutoski]

I think the distinction should be between bad luck as a retrospective description of an individual's experiences versus bad luck as a property of the individual and therefore predictive about what will happen to him in the future.

Having said that, there is some evidence that people have different talents for identifying opportunities in a neutral environment. This is a property of the individual, and can be predictive, and very closely resembles what feels like bad luck.

To respond to some thoughts in prior posts: even knowing a causal agent is not the same thing as having control over it. If the sun exploded and fried us all tomorrow... bummer, but not something that we can say we just let happen.

[soylent]

If you define the occurence of statistically unlikely events of a fortuitous or unfavourable character as good luck and bad luck respetively, then yes.

Luck defined merely as beating the odds is memoryless; it does not affect outcomes of uncorrelated future events.