A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

What a lousy example to start off with. If you're going to create an insult thread about a extremely well known and very prolific poster, you ought to be able to do a lot better. That you can't predict my actions, tell me the prediction beforehand, and have your prediction remain correct if I'm sufficiently motivated to prove you wrong is, instead of a logical fallacy, pretty obviously correct.


I don't know why I should help you, but if you really want to continue with this exercise, look into some of DS's statements about religious people (not religion per se).

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is a joke, it's the only worthwhile part of your OP. If it's a conscious lie, you're a coward for trying to put an acceptable face on a condescending flame. If you actually believe it to be true, then it's really quite sad, and I apologise for the harsh tone of this post.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

What a lousy example to start off with. If you're going to create an insult thread about a extremely well known and very prolific poster, you ought to be able to do a lot better. That you can't predict my actions, tell me the prediction beforehand, and have your prediction remain correct if I'm sufficiently motivated to prove you wrong is, instead of a logical fallacy, pretty obviously correct.


I don't know why I should help you, but if you really want to continue with this exercise, look into some of DS's statements about religious people (not religion per se).

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is a joke, it's the only worthwhile part of your OP. If it's a conscious lie, you're a coward for trying to put an acceptable face on a condescending flame. If you actually believe it to be true, then it's really quite sad, and I apologise for the harsh tone of this post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I actually made this post in complete earnest.

The original argument does not set out to prove that YOU (or a specific entity) cannot predict my actions. I have no doubts with regard to your ineptitude along those lines.

However, this does not speak towards EVERYONE'S (or an "algorithm's") ineptitude with regard to the matter. It is a classic confusion of "failure of my imagination" with "failure of everyone's imagination."

But I am glad to help you understand that you make this mistake as well.

Sklansky believes he is on to some sort of "meta rigor" because he has had extensive experience with probability with regard to "poker, gaming, and life." My purposes for this post: to challenge DS's credibility when he tries to toss around probabilistic reasoning where it is not applicable, and to potentially steer those that he criticizes towards a meaningful source of rebuttals, if at least by analogy. In particular, the religious faithful are particularly inept to counter his armies of fractions, so I hope to at least help defend their ignorance (dignity?). I chose this starting example for dramatic effect; it shows that he is capable of downright mistakes. (Or at least that he is "toying" within a lot of these debates, and should not always be taken seriously.)

And as to the cowardliness, I guess you are leveled. I am openly making fun of DS for being stupid. Sort of like a nerd bully type fantasy. I "grew up" on his books, and I guess that deep down I just want to say to him "once but the learner, now I am the master."

Alas, it will never happen, until I can afford to sit out of 300-600 to play the ponies.

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]


Let's see if I follow -
I decide to bluff the river with my Ace high and put on a "I'm strong" act because the outcome I want is "he folds".
He calls. Darn, my attempt to prevent that didn't work.
Oh, wait. He called with the only Ace I can beat.

That proves I should not have tried to prevent him from calling with a blank Ace?

[/ QUOTE ]


Through your own action A you tried to prevent action B of your opponent because you assigned to B a high enough degree of bad consequences for you a significant majority of the time meaning you DONT want him to call because there is only one Ace you can beat.

Your opponent ignores your action A and proceeds on action B which you did not want. As it turns out the result is that he indeed called with the only Ace you could beat. Yoou were right in not wanting him to do B, he was WRONG to do B. Just bear in mind how he played next time you come across each other. You did well.

[ QUOTE ]
Communist Vietnam post-war emerged into a different world because of the war than the one it would have emerged into if there were no war.
To decide whether the war was right or wrong because of one aspect of the end position leaves ostriches with better views.

[/ QUOTE ]No dont get confused with such a large picture. This is about the US interests in Indochina. What the US wanted? The US wanted not to have Vietnam causing a domino effect. The US was not after converting the North to capitalism but to STOP COMMUNISM FROM SPREADING.

Thats the ONLY parameter here see.

As things turned out North Vietnam won the war, the South Vietnam and the US lost the war, and Vietnam all turned communist. BUT THERE WAS NO DOMINO EFFECT. In fact you could say that the Vietnam war CAUSED Cambodia and Laos to turn temporarily communist!!

So summary : The US did not want Vietnam Victory (VV) because it assumed that would result inevitably in domino effect (DE). The US went to extraordinary effort for VV not to happen, losing in the process world opinion, friends and allies, money, lives, political capital, domestic unity, etc etc etc. Then VV happened. But DE did NOT!! And so VV turned out NOT AS BAD AS THE US THOUGHT IT WOULD BE. Exacly as the opponents to the war were saying!!

Ergo, the US was very wrong to pursue all that effort. Exacly as the opponents to the war were saying!!

[chezlaw]

Post deleted by chezlaw

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Let's see if I follow -
I decide to bluff the river with my Ace high and put on a "I'm strong" act because the outcome I want is "he folds".
He calls. Darn, my attempt to prevent that didn't work.
Oh, wait. He called with the only Ace I can beat.

That proves I should not have tried to prevent him from calling with a blank Ace?

[/ QUOTE ]


Through your own action A you tried to prevent action B of your opponent because you assigned to B a high enough degree of bad consequences for you a significant majority of the time meaning you DONT want him to call because there is only one Ace you can beat.

Your opponent ignores your action A and proceeds on action B which you did not want. As it turns out the result is that he indeed called with the only Ace you could beat. Yoou were right in not wanting him to do B, he was WRONG to do B. Just bear in mind how he played next time you come across each other. You did well.

[ QUOTE ]
Communist Vietnam post-war emerged into a different world because of the war than the one it would have emerged into if there were no war.
To decide whether the war was right or wrong because of one aspect of the end position leaves ostriches with better views.

[/ QUOTE ]No dont get confused with such a large picture. This is about the US interests in Indochina. What the US wanted? The US wanted not to have Vietnam causing a domino effect. The US was not after converting the North to capitalism but to STOP COMMUNISM FROM SPREADING.

Thats the ONLY parameter here see.

As things turned out North Vietnam won the war, the South Vietnam and the US lost the war, and Vietnam all turned communist. BUT THERE WAS NO DOMINO EFFECT. In fact you could say that the Vietnam war CAUSED Cambodia and Laos to turn temporarily communist!!

So summary : The US did not want Vietnam Victory (VV) because it assumed that would result inevitably in domino effect (DE). The US went to extraordinary effort for VV not to happen, losing in the process world opinion, friends and allies, money, lives, political capital, domestic unity, etc etc etc. Then VV happened. But DE did NOT!! And so VV turned out NOT AS BAD AS THE US THOUGHT IT WOULD BE. Exacly as the opponents to the war were saying!!

Ergo, the US was very wrong to pursue all that effort. Exacly as the opponents to the war were saying!!

[/ QUOTE ]
That may very well be correct but again its exactly not what DS is claiming (or at least the path he is guiding people down).

What you can't do is notice we lost the war and deduce from the fact things aren't so bad now that it was a misconceived war. rather you have to consider factors like the domino effect and recognise that the world after the war wouldn't have been much better if we'd won then it was when we lost and hence it wasn't worth fighting.

That's not to say your analysis is correct and nor is it a defense of the vietnam war. The only importnat point is that if you want to know if the war was worth fighting then you need to look into the history of it (as you have done)before making a judgement.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately, the goal is to illustrate the danger of accepting an argument from authority, without fully understanding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're christian, are you not? Well, most of the anti-Sklansky gang is anyway. Doesn't God say you must worship Him and accept everything He says even though He's beyond human understanding?

(well, actually, "He" doesn't, because He doesn't exist, but religious entities tell us this in His stead)

On the other hand, Sklansky goes the extra mile to try to get retards to understand what he's arguing. I'm not sure he gets people to believe what he says without understanding it, but if this happens, it's not his intention, I'm sure.

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]

its exactly not what DS is claiming (or at least the path he is guiding people down).

[/ QUOTE ]i disagree

THATS EXACTLY WHAT SKLANSKY IS SAYING!!

and andy fox got it very precisely

paths of sklansky glory

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

its exactly not what DS is claiming (or at least the path he is guiding people down).

[/ QUOTE ]i disagree

THATS EXACTLY WHAT SKLANSKY IS SAYING!!

and andy fox got it very precisely

paths of sklansky glory

[/ QUOTE ]
No he isn't. You had to consider whether or not the USA will to fight further battles had been diminished and although you didn't mention it you have to consider the perception of that on the foes who might otherwise have proceeded with further battles.

This may all be obvious to you (though other people vermently disagree) BUT this analysis is necessary and is contained in or entailed by who won the war in vietnam - it requires understanding and analysis.

SOME CAPITALS AS THEY SEEM IMPORTANT TO THE POINT YOU'RE MISSING.

chez

[Leaky Eye]

[ 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 ]

Teh David,

I have heard people say the Vietnam war was fought to combat the domino effect in SE asia. Because the purpose of the war was to stop the domino effect you assume that you win if it stops. The domino effect did stall and finally stop there. The Vietnam war was an overall victory.

Other than ascribing the motivation for the war, how is that argument different than yours?

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
You're christian, are you not? Well, most of the anti-Sklansky gang is anyway. Doesn't God say you must worship Him and accept everything He says even though He's beyond human understanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. And as you are apparently not a Christian, and have done no theological research worth noting, why are you speaking such tripe?

Here's what God does. He says, in various ways through various agents and media: "Here's the Way Things Work so you can have perfect happiness forever. You have the freedom to believe this and act on it or not."

I would like to point something out to those who want to attack the man instead of discuss his work: This is one of the few message boards I have ever been on where you can attack the list owner and not be summarily banned. I suggest in ways important, as in assessing character, those intent on attack come out second-best to their subject.

Look to yourselves, O Wise Ones.