|
these debates remind me of...
when i was a young child i had the following thought:
say there is a question which has a definite answer. the answer must be either yes or no, and there is argument about which is answer is correct. a young child or simple-minded person might answer "yes," using overly simple, incomplete, or unreasonable logic. a slightly older/smarter person might answer "no", using slightly better logic. another person, even smarter, might again answer "yes" using even better logic. another, even smarter, "no", with even better logic etc. etc. each is unaware of his own ignorance - each is confident he is correct - each has an approximately equal chance of actually being correct. this was kind of an epiphany for me at the time, and to this day amuses me. the hopelessness of having logic and ignorance at the same time! being human! |
Re: these debates remind me of...
you just essentially described poker
|
Re: these debates remind me of...
which debates?
|
Re: these debates remind me of...
And then there is this thing about 'smarter'.
I met a couple once, and the husband in the relationship drove a septic truck. Per all definitons amongst intellectuals this was not your classic 'smart' guy. However, he did work only 2-3 days a week, he did make around 70-80k US a year - which isn't a ton but when you get 4-5 days off a week its kinda cool - and he was very funny and he did have a beautiful and very funny wife. All in all I think I'll have to admit he is probably one of the smartest people I have met in my life. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
does free will exist?
is ____ immoral? another trigger for this memory is the scene from The Princess Bride where the short bald guy is trying reason out which glass the hero put the poison into |
Re: these debates remind me of...
All well and good, except for:
<font color="blue"> each is unaware of his own ignorance - each is confident he is correct - each has an approximately equal chance of actually being correct. </font> Rarely do two propositions have an aproximate equal chance of actually being correct. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
you just essentially described poker [/ QUOTE ] Exactly what I thought while reading the OP. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
Rarely do two propositions have an aproximate equal chance of actually being correct. [/ QUOTE ] so then, in my example, which is more likely to be correct? "yes" - which the level 1, 3, and 5 logics supported, respectively - or "no" - which the level 2,4, and 6 logics supported? there could be infinite levels of logic. that one is in reality "more likely" is beside the point. according to my definition of the question, in reality, 1 answer is 100% right and one is 100% wrong. we just don't know which. therefore, to ignorant thinkers like us, the probability is essentially 50-50. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Rarely do two propositions have an aproximate equal chance of actually being correct. [/ QUOTE ] so then, in my example, which is more likely to be correct? "yes" - which the level 1, 3, and 5 logics supported, respectively - or "no" - which the level 2,4, and 6 logics supported? there could be infinite levels of logic. that one is in reality "more likely" is beside the point. according to my definition of the question, in reality, 1 answer is 100% right and one is 100% wrong. we just don't know which. therefore, to ignorant thinkers like us, the probability is essentially 50-50. [/ QUOTE ] The ones using the better logic are more likely to be correct but your whole post is misdirected. Clever, wiser people are aware of their ignorance. Its mainly stupid people who are convinced about beliefs without good reason. chez |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Rarely do two propositions have an aproximate equal chance of actually being correct. [/ QUOTE ] so then, in my example, which is more likely to be correct? "yes" - which the level 1, 3, and 5 logics supported, respectively - or "no" - which the level 2,4, and 6 logics supported? there could be infinite levels of logic. that one is in reality "more likely" is beside the point. according to my definition of the question, in reality, 1 answer is 100% right and one is 100% wrong. we just don't know which. therefore, to ignorant thinkers like us, the probability is essentially 50-50. [/ QUOTE ] The likelihood that a belief is true is measured relative to the justification one has for believing it. I might believe that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain on earth because I think the name "Everest" sounds like it would be a tall mountain. That is a poor justification for the belief, and therefore my belief is not likely to be true given my reason for believing it. Someone else may believe that Everest is the tallest mountain on earth because they have read that careful efforts to measure the height of the mountain indicate that it is the tallest mountain on earth. The belief is more justified in this case, and hence we would evaluate the belief in the second case as more likely to be true. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
Clever, wiser people are aware of their ignorance. [/ QUOTE ] Or so they think [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Clever, wiser people are aware of their ignorance. [/ QUOTE ] Or so they think [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] One good thing is when you think you don't know something then you don't. chez |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
One good thing is when you think you don't know something then you don't. [/ QUOTE ] yes, but it doesn't mean that it is the extent of what you don't know |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One good thing is when you think you don't know something then you don't. [/ QUOTE ] yes, but it doesn't mean that it is the extent of what you don't know [/ QUOTE ] True but your premise that everyone is convinced they are right is wrong. chez |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
(the) premise that everyone is convinced they are right is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] i absolutely agree. i didn't mean for that to be my premise. my example was with hypotheticals - an approximation of a scenario that can exist. i didn't mean to say that it always exists. if the smartest man in the example says "here is my logic - but i don't know if it's complete - so i don't know the answer," that's probably more realistic...but it doesn't change the irony that he may be wrong, and the idiot may be right (for the wrong reason). |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] (the) premise that everyone is convinced they are right is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] i absolutely agree. i didn't mean for that to be my premise. my example was with hypotheticals - an approximation of a scenario that can exist. i didn't mean to say that it always exists. if the smartest man in the example says "here is my logic - but i don't know if it's complete - so i don't know the answer," that's probably more realistic...but it doesn't change the irony that he may be wrong, and the idiot may be right (for the wrong reason). [/ QUOTE ] Okay progress but the uncertainty in these issues is nothing to do with logics (complete or not). but yes a complete idiot may be right by accident. On most interesting issues its not 50:50. Its come up many times in the reliogus discussions - its stunningly unlikely any religon is correct and someone who believe their religon is correct is being silly even if it turns out their religon is correct. chez |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
Rarely do two propositions have an aproximate equal chance of actually being correct. -------------- so then, in my example, which is more likely to be correct? "yes" - which the level 1, 3, and 5 logics supported, respectively - or "no" - which the level 2,4, and 6 logics supported? there could be infinite levels of logic. that one is in reality "more likely" is beside the point. according to my definition of the question, in reality, 1 answer is 100% right and one is 100% wrong. we just don't know which. therefore, to ignorant thinkers like us, the probability is essentially 50-50. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The likelihood that a belief is true is measured relative to the justification one has for believing it. I might believe that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain on earth because I think the name "Everest" sounds like it would be a tall mountain. That is a poor justification for the belief, and therefore my belief is not likely to be true given my reason for believing it. Someone else may believe that Everest is the tallest mountain on earth because they have read that careful efforts to measure the height of the mountain indicate that it is the tallest mountain on earth. The belief is more justified in this case, and hence we would evaluate the belief in the second case as more likely to be true. [/ QUOTE ] right. but this is an example in which level of logic is limited. we plateau at the level of your 2nd person. no one can really be more logical than he is regarding this question. take the Princess Bride example: hero puts poison into 1 of 2 cups of wine and then sets one of the cups in front of his opponent and the other in front of himself. the opponent must pick which cup to drink (hero must drink the other). opponents line of reasoning (progressing in level) 1. you put the cup with the poison in front of me, so i'd be more likely to pick it 2. you knew i'd know this, so you put the poison in front of yourself 3. you knew i'd know you'd know that, so you put the poison in front of me 4.... 5..... etc etc a humorous example, because most of us are smart enough to realize that the levels of "logic" here are infinite, and thus, with the information we have, we can never have much better than a 50-50 shot - but it illustrates the point. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
essentially, everyone below the level of "complete logic" has a 50-50 chance. if there is a chance your logic is complete, then yes, you have a better than 50-50 shot. (if your logic is definitely complete, then you have a 100% shot) everyone who is definitely below that plateau is 50-50, regardless of how much more logical they are than the people below them.
|
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
right. but this is an example in which level of logic is limited. we plateau at the level of your 2nd person. no one can really be more logical than he is regarding this question. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what you mean by 'the level of logic is limited'. First we need to distinguish between logic, and say, empirical evidence. 'Logic' refers to the reasoning involved in forming a belief (i.e., the relationship between your premises/evidence and your conclusion/belief), which is to be distinguished from one's reasons for forming the belief (in the case of empirical beliefs the reasons are usually other empirical beliefs). There is no cap on the possible empirical evidence relevant to whether or not Everest is the tallest mountain (except in the ideal if one is omniscient). The person who reads about the measurement, for example, does not have as good a warrant for believing that Everest is the tallest mountain as the person who actually made the measurement. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
essentially, everyone below the level of "complete logic" has a 50-50 chance. if there is a chance your logic is complete, then yes, you have a better than 50-50 shot. (if your logic is definitely complete, then you have a 100% shot) everyone who is definitely below that plateau is 50-50, regardless of how much more logical they are than the people below them. [/ QUOTE ] So given an infinite number of possible religons then anyone who believes there's is right has a 50:50 chance of being correct. Surely that cannot be what you're saying chez |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] essentially, everyone below the level of "complete logic" has a 50-50 chance. if there is a chance your logic is complete, then yes, you have a better than 50-50 shot. (if your logic is definitely complete, then you have a 100% shot) everyone who is definitely below that plateau is 50-50, regardless of how much more logical they are than the people below them. [/ QUOTE ] So given an infinite number of possible religons then anyone who believes there's is right has a 50:50 chance of being correct. Surely that cannot be what you're saying chez [/ QUOTE ] "so what are your roots?" "half black, half white, half cherokee" |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] essentially, everyone below the level of "complete logic" has a 50-50 chance. if there is a chance your logic is complete, then yes, you have a better than 50-50 shot. (if your logic is definitely complete, then you have a 100% shot) everyone who is definitely below that plateau is 50-50, regardless of how much more logical they are than the people below them. [/ QUOTE ] So given an infinite number of possible religons then anyone who believes there's is right has a 50:50 chance of being correct. Surely that cannot be what you're saying chez [/ QUOTE ] the question must be a yes or no question. as thinkers' logical ability increases, there must be shifting back and forth and back again between the answers yes and no. "is my religion correct?" doesnt really work - because its hard to imagine any intelligent logical debate about the subject - at least any that goes beyond 2 levels. (back and forth and back again) but let's try. the question is : is everything taught in the Catholic church 100% correct? my dog says no, because he's never heard of church. my mom says yes, because God is the only way she can explain her own existence, and her parents told her that Catholicism is right. my lawyer says no, because he can point out inconsistencies in Catholic teachings. for simplicity's sake - lets assume that we, as outside observers, can agree that the lawyer has reached the highest known level of logic on the subject- by that i mean: no one can think of reasonable a way to counter the lawyer's argument with a superior argument which says "yes." the lawyer, having reached the highest known level of logic, might be right - therefor his answer might be right for the right reason (X). even if this is not true, his answer also might be right for the wrong reason. (50% because there are 2 possible answers and he picked one. ill try to better explain why its exactly 50% later) his chance of being right is (X+.5)/1. now, take my mom. since we know that her logic is flawed, we know that she is never right for the right reason. because we know that the lawyer is better than 50% to be right, and because we know that my mom has the opposite answer, we know that she must be worse than 50%...but if we didn't know her answer relative to the highest level answer, we would have to assume she was 50%. for example: my dog and my mom are both logically inferior to the lawyer. We will call them Group I, and the lawyer Group S. what is the chance that a random member of group I has the right answer? i think this argument about 50% is a matter of communication about what the % actually refers to, rather than actual disagreement. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
<font color="blue">but this is an example in which level of logic is limited. </font>
It's an example of where information is limited, but not logic. Theoretically, it's possible to out-think the guy when it comes to which glass contains the poison. The only time this wouldn't be true is if he used some random device beforehand to determine which glass he tainted. All this reminds me of a childhood memory too... My best friend and I would often settle things by playing a game called odds and evens (best out of 5). I'd beat him almost every time. We joked about this, long after he moved away. Odds and evens is supposed to be 50/50. Clearly, it wasn't. But if my friend were smart enough back then to flip a coin to decide how many fingers he'd put out, it would've been. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
the only thing i'm saying is this:
If there is a True/False question on a high school test, and you don't have the knowledge/logical ability to find the answer the right way...we have to assume you have a 50% chance, unless we have more information. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
my dog says no, because he's never heard of church. [/ QUOTE ] That makes no sense. Even your dog would do better [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
but this is an example in which level of logic is limited. It's an example of where information is limited, but not logic. Theoretically, it's possible to out-think the guy when it comes to which glass contains the poison. The only time this wouldn't be true is if he used some random device beforehand to determine which glass he tainted. [/ QUOTE ] exactly. "but this is an example in which level of logic is limited. " refers to the mount everest example. the poison example was supposed to be a better example, with near-infinite logical possibilites |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] but this is an example in which level of logic is limited. It's an example of where information is limited, but not logic. Theoretically, it's possible to out-think the guy when it comes to which glass contains the poison. The only time this wouldn't be true is if he used some random device beforehand to determine which glass he tainted. [/ QUOTE ] exactly. "but this is an example in which level of logic is limited. " refers to the mount everest example. the poison example was supposed to be a better example, with near-infinite logical possibilites [/ QUOTE ] I just don't understand why you view the level of logic as limited, whereas I see it as infinite. Using your example: The most obvious thing would be for him to put the glass containing poison in front of me. Unless he knows I know he's trying to poison me, then he'd put it front of himself. But if he knows I know he knows that, then he'd put it in front of me, etc., etc. Yes, it's an either/or proposition, but I certainly don't see the logic as being limited. Again, I see it as almost infinite. Of course, this doesn't mean the correct answer is easy (or even possible), to arrive at. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
lol. are you messing with me? re-read my quote in your post. i agree. i'm not sure what you think you are disagreeing about.
|
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
now, take my mom. since we know that her logic is flawed, we know that she is never right for the right reason. because we know that the lawyer is better than 50% to be right, and because we know that my mom has the opposite answer, we know that she must be worse than 50%...but if we didn't know her answer relative to the highest level answer, we would have to assume she was 50%. [/ QUOTE ] Would we? Even if we know there are dozens of such questions that are mutually exclusive? And an infinite number, at the theoretical level? If your mother can be assumed (even in this context) to be 50% right, then so can the followers of all the other mutually exclusive faiths (at your mother's level of functioning). But of course this is absurd - the total probability can't exceed 100%. You want to give your mother 50%? If you do that, you are necessarily suggesting that Catholicism is the belief system most likely to be true. So you can't do that. This is relevant for two reasons. The first is the point that a yes/no question can have implications that go beyond the yes/no context of the specific debate. Just because a question is yes/no and has a "back-and-forth" doesn't mean it's sensible to give it a weight of 50%. It would be more appropriate to say that we can't weigh it at all. More importantly, the argument regarding Catholicism can be easily applied to show that the probably of any specific belief system judged according to a general approach is 0. This doesn't necessarily mean much - probability 0 isn't the same as impossibility, and it frequently indicates that the question can't be answered probabilistically. However, this little point shows that any specific belief must be either inherently superior to the alternatives in some way or extremely arbitrary. If we abandon the idea of inherent superiority (which is almost impossible to logically support - though legitimate "faith" experiences could qualify) that leaves us with belief systems that are wholly arbitrary. And while proving that Catholicism is arbitrary isn't the same as proving Catholicism false, it is pretty damning (no pun intended). |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand why you view the level of logic as limited, whereas I see it as infinite. Using your example: The most obvious thing would be for him to put the glass containing poison in front of me. Unless he knows I know he's trying to poison me, then he'd put it front of himself. But if he knows I know he knows that, then he'd put it in front of me, etc., etc. Yes, it's an either/or proposition, but I certainly don't see the logic as being limited. Again, I see it as almost infinite. Of course, this doesn't mean the correct answer is easy (or even possible), to arrive at. [/ QUOTE ] Wrt this scenario, there is really only one logical step being taken. That it's being taken over and over against ad infinitum doesn't imply that it's "infinite logic." By correctly taking the next logical step the thinker should arrive at a more nuanced position. For example, you might reason that a tricky person would put the glass in front of himself and a direct person would put the glass in front of you. Then the question is whether your opponent is tricky or direct. This can probably be described as "moving up a level" in terms of reasoning. I'm not sure how far these situations can be taken - at some point it'll be a matter of information and psychological intuition. Then again, some people are very good at rock, paper, scissors. They successfully apply logic to win a fundamentally random game. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] now, take my mom. since we know that her logic is flawed, we know that she is never right for the right reason. because we know that the lawyer is better than 50% to be right, and because we know that my mom has the opposite answer, we know that she must be worse than 50%...but if we didn't know her answer relative to the highest level answer, we would have to assume she was 50%. [/ QUOTE ] Would we? Even if we know there are dozens of such questions that are mutually exclusive? And an infinite number, at the theoretical level? If your mother can be assumed (even in this context) to be 50% right, then so can the followers of all the other mutually exclusive faiths (at your mother's level of functioning). But of course this is absurd - the total probability can't exceed 100%. You want to give your mother 50%? If you do that, you are necessarily suggesting that Catholicism is the belief system most likely to be true. So you can't do that. This is relevant for two reasons. The first is the point that a yes/no question can have implications that go beyond the yes/no context of the specific debate. Just because a question is yes/no and has a "back-and-forth" doesn't mean it's sensible to give it a weight of 50%. It would be more appropriate to say that we can't weigh it at all. More importantly, the argument regarding Catholicism can be easily applied to show that the probably of any specific belief system judged according to a general approach is 0. This doesn't necessarily mean much - probability 0 isn't the same as impossibility, and it frequently indicates that the question can't be answered probabilistically. However, this little point shows that any specific belief must be either inherently superior to the alternatives in some way or extremely arbitrary. If we abandon the idea of inherent superiority (which is almost impossible to logically support - though legitimate "faith" experiences could qualify) that leaves us with belief systems that are wholly arbitrary. And while proving that Catholicism is arbitrary isn't the same as proving Catholicism false, it is pretty damning (no pun intended). [/ QUOTE ] heh, i'm getting frustrated here at my inability to effectively communicate. I am NOT saying that the answer "yes" is 50% to be right. i am saying this and only this: (please read carefully) if we know someone has used an illogical method to arrive at an answer to a yes/no question, and that is ALL that we know, then, given the information we have, they are 50% to be correct. (assume we do not know the question, we do not know the answer, and we do not know who the person shares/doesn't share a viewpoint with etc) despite the fact that this statement is simple and obvious and will get no argument from anyone (once you understand what is and isn't being said), the implications, to me, are profound. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
obviously your logic here is correct. it's just that we are talking about 2 different things. you are saying "i think i know the answer because of this and this and this (logic)- so anyone who has the other answer must be unlikely to be right" yes, obviously. if we know the answer, hell, we can say she is 0% to be right.
i am saying - if we don't know their answers, just that they are both illogical (with the dog being less logical than my mom) both are 50% to be right. the important part is that it doesnt matter who is "more illogical", their chance of being right is equal. as it turns out, the dog is more illogical, but is right. again: this only works if we know for certain that neither has a chance of being logically correct, and the question has only 2 answers. perhaps the idea could be summarized : illogical is illogical. there are not varying degrees. being close doesn't matter. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
<font color="blue">despite the fact that this statement is simple and obvious and will get no argument from anyone (once you understand what is and isn't being said), the implications, to me, are profound. </font>
I guess I'm being dumb, but I think I can be counted as someone who doesn't understand what is and isn't being said. <font color="blue">if we know someone has used an illogical method to arrive at an answer to a yes/no question, and that is ALL that we know, then, given the information we have, they are 50% to be correct. </font> Why is this true? Example: There either is, or isn't a god. If you were willing to place your world views at the mercy of a coin flip with heads meaning there is a god, and tails meaning there isn't, you would have a 50% chance of arriving at the correct answer. However, if you use illogical thought, you are MORE likely to arrive at a WRONG answer and therefore, are LESS than 50% to be right about whether there is, or isn't a god. Do you dispute this? I know you think I'm being a nit, or purposely finding fault, but I don't think you're saying what you really mean. Either that, or you're WAY over my head with this logic thing. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
However, if you use illogical thought, you are MORE likely to arrive at a WRONG answer and therefore... [/ QUOTE ] why? i think you should prove this before i have to disprove it. the question is multiple choice with 2 choices. you are more likely to arrive at THE (as opposed to "a") wrong answer ... than someone who uses logical thought, of course. but you are not more likely to arrive at the wrong answer than the right answer. if you were, a monkey would not be able to average 50% on a true/false test. please, someone who understands what im saying stand up for me here. edit: i think i might understand what you are getting at. is it something along the lines of: there are only so many paths of reasoning you can take. if you exclude the "right" path, the leftover paths are more likely to be wrong. ? i think this logic is flawed. first, because the number of illogical paths is infinite. second, because the illogical paths are independant of the logical path, at least in our example. granted, if the illogical thinkers have access to the logical path, and reject it, then i believe you are right...because there is a sort of correlation going on. i should have specified in my setup that each level of logic is ignorant of the existence of the level above it. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
Ok, let's take another example:
Somewhere in the world there is a person who will will hear creaks and see a shadow outside their bedroom door tonight that looks like an apparition of some sort. So they can either conlude, a). There is a ghost residing in their house, or, b). There is some other (logical) explanation. Rest assured, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people across the world reach the wrong conclusion every day through illogical thought and deduction, when they would've done better to just flip a coin to decide whether or not their homes were being haunted by a ghost. More logical thinking people would of course, do a little research and eventually find the source of the shadows and creaking and be much more likely to (correctly) conclude there in fact, is no ghost in the house and that these hings are being caused by something else such as lighting from a window, or are due to drowsiness from being asleep, etc. And even if they couldn't find an exact cause, they would continue searching before accepting the incorrect notion of their being a ghost. So I submit that for all intents and purposes, many people would do better by flipping a coin to decide the correct answer to something, rather than using an illogical thought process. Again, it happens every day somewhere in the world where someone is totally and utterly convinced their houses are haunted by ghosts. |
Re: these debates remind me of...
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let's take another example: Somewhere in the world there is a person who will will hear creaks and see a shadow outside their bedroom door tonight that looks like an apparition of some sort. So they can either conlude, a). There is a ghost residing in their house, or, b). There is some other (logical) explanation. Rest assured, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people across the world reach the wrong conclusion every day through illogical thought and deduction, when they would've done better to just flip a coin to decide whether or not their homes were being haunted by a ghost. More logical thinking people would of course, do a little research and eventually find the source of the shadows and creaking and be much more likely to (correctly) conclude there in fact, is no ghost in the house and that these hings are being caused by something else such as lighting from a window, or are due to drowsiness from being asleep, etc. And even if they couldn't find an exact cause, they would continue searching before accepting the incorrect notion of their being a ghost. So I submit that for all intents and purposes, many people would do better by flipping a coin to decide the correct answer to something, rather than using an illogical thought process. Again, it happens every day somewhere in the world where someone is totally and utterly convinced their houses are haunted by ghosts. [/ QUOTE ] well, i could argue that many of the illogical thinkers in your example actually did come to the right answer. for instance - there are no ghosts in my house because i don't believe in ghosts. but the real problem with your example is that you are working backwards. you are starting out with a unique group of people who are likely to have the wrong answer (people who heard a strange noise at night). you are breaking the rule that we must not know anything about them, other than that they are illogical. you actually did this- we KNOW they have the wrong answer. why do they have the wrong answer? because they are illogical. therefore: illogic usually leads to a wrong answer. that reasoning is flawed, mathematically. True: if they have the wrong answer, they are illogical False: if they are illogical, they have the wrong answer |
Another Example:
John has been running really bad lately. But last week a friend gave him a rabbit's foot and since then, he's been on a tremendous heater. He won +50 big bets 3 days in a row and each day he had the rabbit's foot on him. Now John wants to move up in limits to recoup the previous months losses quicker. Should he do it? How should he decide? What method would better serve him? To flip a coin? Or to use irrational thought?
Either the rabbit's foot has helped him win, or it hasn't and John has just been experiencing a coincidence over the last 3 days. Illogical thought would lead him to believe he should definitely move up in limit. After all, here's a guy who hasn't won in months and ever since he got the rabbit's foot, he can't seem to lose. So there must be something to it! Again, rest assured there are people who base their decisions on things very similar to this. Do you deny that someone who concludes (through illogical thought), that their rabbit's foot is lucky, has better than a 50% chance of being wrong? |
Re: these debates remind me of...
Well, I'm not well versed in math, so if someone can explain it mathematically, I'll have to concede.
My main point is, that people use illogical thought processes every day to make decisions and they are more likely to be wrong about them, than if they were to simply flip a coin. This is not because we already know they have the wrong answer, but because they are illogical. The very process of illogical thought is more likely to lead to an incorrect answer than a random choosing. But this is what you disagree with. I'm all out of examples for now. So let's wait until someone can explain the correct answer to one of us. |
Wait! Wait! - A Perfect Example?
The Monty Hall problem! Are you familiar with it? If so, I don't want to go into it. But this is a perfect example of where flipping a coin would give an illogical thinker a better shot of coming up with the right answer (which is to switch). If you do not think logically, you will invariably say it doesn't matter if you switch or not. This of course, is wrong!
|
Re: Wait! Wait! - A Perfect Example?
[ QUOTE ]
The Monty Hall problem! [/ QUOTE ] Is quite simple really, after hearing the explanation anyone who disagrees with it is pretty dumb imo. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.