Often the best way to start is to go to the dictionary.
The American Heritage Dictionary says:
co·in·ci·dence (kō-ĭn'sĭ-dəns, -dĕns')
n.
The American Heritage Dictionary says:
co·in·ci·dence (kō-ĭn'sĭ-dəns, -dĕns')
n.
- The state or fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space.
- A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
Webster's:
Main Entry: co·in·ci·dence
Pronunciation: kO-'in(t)-s&-d&n(t)s, -s&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
1 : the act or condition of coinciding : CORRESPONDENCE
2 : the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection
The second definition in each is probably the most relevant for us. The operative words in both are "seem(s)" and "accident(al)." "Seems" implies that someone is making a judgment about the event. "Accidental" would imply no visible cause and effect. So we could say by definition that a coincidence is something open to interpretation. Geez- it's ambiguous already. And we've hardly started.
I found this reference on many pages when looking it up on Google:
A coincidence is a surprising concurrence of events, perceived as meaningfully related, with no apparent causal connection (Diaconis and Mosteller 1989). Diaconis, P. and Mosteller, F. ``Methods of Studying Coincidences.'' J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 84, 853-861, 1989.
Now we've added the word "surprising" which springboards it into a whole new level. Not only are we judging about how the events are connected, but we have a reaction to the coincidence itself.
Main Entry: co·in·ci·dence
Pronunciation: kO-'in(t)-s&-d&n(t)s, -s&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
1 : the act or condition of coinciding : CORRESPONDENCE
2 : the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection
The second definition in each is probably the most relevant for us. The operative words in both are "seem(s)" and "accident(al)." "Seems" implies that someone is making a judgment about the event. "Accidental" would imply no visible cause and effect. So we could say by definition that a coincidence is something open to interpretation. Geez- it's ambiguous already. And we've hardly started.
I found this reference on many pages when looking it up on Google:
A coincidence is a surprising concurrence of events, perceived as meaningfully related, with no apparent causal connection (Diaconis and Mosteller 1989). Diaconis, P. and Mosteller, F. ``Methods of Studying Coincidences.'' J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 84, 853-861, 1989.
Now we've added the word "surprising" which springboards it into a whole new level. Not only are we judging about how the events are connected, but we have a reaction to the coincidence itself.
Comments