ABSTRACT
In common parlance, to choose “at random” is to choose without bias, to make the act of choosing one without purpose even though the eventual outcome may be used for a decision. The emphasis here is on the act rather than the outcome. It is certainly not true to say that ordinary folk accept that random choice means absence of design in the outcome. Politicians, examining the polls, have been known to remark that the result was “in the cards.” Primitive notions of fate, demons, guardian angels, and modern appeals to the “will of God” often lie behind the drawing of lots and the tossing of coins to “decide” if Mary loves John, or to take one course of action rather than another. It is absence of design in the manner of choosing that is important. The point must not be labored, but everyday notions of chance are still construed, even by the most sophisticated, in ways that are not too far removed from the random element in divination and sortilege practiced by the oracles and priests who were consulted by our remote, and not-so-remote, ancestors. And, as already noted, perhaps one of the reasons for the delay in the development of the probability calculus arose from a reluctance to attempt to “second-guess” the gods.
