these debates remind me of...

[willie24]

[ 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.

[willie24]

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.

[Lestat]

<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.

[willie24]

[ 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.

[Lestat]

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.

[willie24]

[ 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

[Lestat]

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?

[Lestat]

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.

[Lestat]

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!

[theAMOG]

[ QUOTE ]
The Monty Hall problem!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is quite simple really, after hearing the explanation anyone who disagrees with it is pretty dumb imo.