A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

In another thread, Pair The Board suggested that there be a FAQ that warns newcomers about potential Sklansky fallacies. (Think of these as Sklansky anti-dollars.) Hence, I figured I would start a thread that aims to collect specific examples in one place, if only for reference. I'll start with my favorite...

Problem: Prove that there is no perfect probability machine.

Sklansky: Ok, suppose for contradiction that there was such a machine...wait, I can trick it, cuz I'm David Sklansky, and I'm smarter than a perfect probability machine! Contradiction!

He really did say this

Any other goodies? Remember, this is a public service we're doing here. Ultimately, the goal is to illustrate the danger of accepting an argument from authority, without fully understanding it.

Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

Sklansky could tell me i was going to marry marilyn monroe in 10 years and I would believe him more than some imaginary being that's bent on rewarding me or punishing me based on my sunday donations to the church.

Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

This project is probably worth pursuing. I said this in a recent post,

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PTB -
David uses (Bayes' Theorem) as a kind of puffery to give the impression that his opinions are more "correct" than those of others. He is very good at this kind of salesmanship.

[/ QUOTE ]

borisp -
...is your gripe that he does not admit that he is only using a mathematical principle by analogy, and not rigorously? I agree that an intellectually honest approach would emphasize this more...

[/ QUOTE ]

PTB -
There is his failure to mention his use of the principle by analogy. I don't think that's a lack of intellectual integrity on his part though. I think he believes he is being rigorous.

[/ QUOTE ]

My statement prompted David to start this thread,
Sklansky is rigorous like Newton was rigorous

in which he denies being rigorous like the "obsessive compulsive" "rigorous mathemeticians", with "an anal fixation on unnecessary rigor" "so devoid of cleverness that they know this is the only way for them to contribute anything".

So he really is denying his practice of that kind of "unnecessary" rigor. But I still think he believes he practices a kind of Sklansky Rigor on a par with Newton's use of infinitesimals which is really better than the "anal retentive" rigor of mathematicians because it is just assuredly correct while being easier to work with.

It is of great importance to David Sklansky that when he speaks, people can be assured that what he says is "correct". He has understandably defended this position vigorously and with great success over the years in regards to his poker books. He has a long way to go establishing that kind of credibility outside of poker.

PairTheBoard

Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky could tell me i was going to marry marilyn monroe in 10 years and I would believe him more than some imaginary being that's bent on rewarding me or punishing me based on my sunday donations to the church.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've either never been to a church or you've been to some very bad ones.

Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

LOL you guys need to take one anti-Viagra pill every morn until you lose your hardon for David. (Not that he doesnt deserve some of it...)

But pls bear in mind that theres also humor behind phrases such as "I could have plugged all the information into the algorithm myself." He has a chuckle writing stuff like that and you wanna deny him the pleasure.

Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

There's the vietnam war fallacy. Can't find the link but its in that book he keeps peddling.

Something about being able to tell the war was a failure just by considering the state of post war viet-nam and the cost.

A logical travesty.

[please note this is not a defense of the vietnam war]

chez

Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's the vietnam war fallacy. Can't find the link but its in that book he keeps peddling.

Something about being able to tell the war was a failure just by considering the state of post war viet-nam and the cost.


A logical travesty.

[please note this is not a defense of the vietnam war]

I sometimes use the word "proof" when I mean strong evidence for. And I stick to what I said. If you assume that you fight a war to stop something from happening, and if you assume that not winning means you failed to stop it, then you can say that we shouldn't have fought the war if what we didn't stop, turned out not to be that bad.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's the vietnam war fallacy. Can't find the link but its in that book he keeps peddling.

Something about being able to tell the war was a failure just by considering the state of post war viet-nam and the cost.


A logical travesty.

[please note this is not a defense of the vietnam war]

I sometimes use the word "proof" when I mean strong evidence for. And I stick to what I said. If you assume that you fight a war to stop something from happening, and if you assume that not winning means you failed to stop it, then you can say that we shouldn't have fought the war if what we didn't stop, turned out not to be that bad.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
but you don't know what you stopped. The only way to assess is is to consider how things would have been if you hadn't had the war.

if the allies had fought germany over troops in the Rhineland, a few million people had died and Germany had 'won' but WW2 never happened and things pretty much settled down then it would appear that by your analysys the war would have been a mistake. edit: its also the judgement the average person would make.

Its nonsense because the correct analyses is to compare the likely world if the war never happened and the world as it turned out. Then decide if it was worth the cost.

chez

Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you assume that you fight a war to stop something from happening, and if you assume that not winning means you failed to stop it, then you can say that we shouldn't have fought the war if what we didn't stop, turned out not to be that bad.



[/ QUOTE ]
but you don't know what you stopped. The only way to assess is is to consider how things would have been if you hadn't had the war.

[/ QUOTE ] But you do know what you DID NOT stop! And what you did not stop is what actually transpired. DS is saying that if what transpired is what you were trying to prevent, and what transpired "turned out not to be that bad", then you should not have fought that war.

Vietnam is actually a perfect example of this. DUCY?

Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you assume that you fight a war to stop something from happening, and if you assume that not winning means you failed to stop it, then you can say that we shouldn't have fought the war if what we didn't stop, turned out not to be that bad.



[/ QUOTE ]
but you don't know what you stopped. The only way to assess is is to consider how things would have been if you hadn't had the war.

[/ QUOTE ] But you do know what you DID NOT stop! And what you did not stop is what actually transpired. DS is saying that if what transpired is what you were trying to prevent, and what transpired "turned out not to be that bad", then you should not have fought that war.

Vietnam is actually a perfect example of this. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the same thing you would be saying if Hitler had the Rhineland and Germany had prospered peacefully. DUCKY.

chez