Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 08-25-2007, 08:35 AM
jason1990 jason1990 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 932
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

First of all, Jaynes (not Jensen) is the creator of the maximum entropy principle which, together with the indifference principle, form two of the fundamental ideas in his version of logical probability. The larger philosophical picture of logical probability is certainly up for debate -- a debate which is not generally the playground of mathematicians -- but the mathematical side of his work and ideas is well-represented in the mathematical community, as a quick search of MathSciNet will reveal.

Second, I have quite a bit of experience teaching many courses ranging from freshman calculus to graduate level courses on stochastic integration and differential equations. I am a professor of mathematics and, in particular, a probabilist. You, on the other hand, I would wager, are (at best) an arrogant graduate student who thinks he knows everything. Yet you do not even understand the difference between the mathematics of probability and the philosophical interpretations of probability. You made your ignorance of this distinction, as well as your arrogance, evident in your third post in SMP.

Since I do not appreciate being personally attacked, I will unfortunately have to forgo the mild entertainment that your conceited, know-it-all ramblings sometimes provide. God bless the ignore list.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-25-2007, 01:14 PM
felson felson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,177
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

I have been rude in my many posts regarding this challenge, but everything I have written has proved essentially correct. But DS, you have had to retract, clarify, and withdraw various points and even the challenge itself. All this on a topic that you started, and from someone who styles himself a teacher of logical thinking.

If that doesn't embarrass you, DS, then you are truly shameless.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-25-2007, 03:04 PM
David Sklansky David Sklansky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,092
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

[ QUOTE ]
I have been rude in my many posts regarding this challenge, but everything I have written has proved essentially correct. But DS, you have had to retract, clarify, and withdraw various points and even the challenge itself. All this on a topic that you started, and from someone who styles himself a teacher of logical thinking.

If that doesn't embarrass you, DS, then you are truly shameless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not embarrassed about it at all. The fact is that Christians who believe in self contradictary concepts are incredibly unlikely to think well. Likewise those who believe in astrology etc.

But since there was no way to prove this easily I thought up a little publicity stunt. Since the number of fundamentalists in the country who would actually be about even with me was much smaller than the number of fundamentalists who would erroneously think they would be a favorite over me, it was plus EV. And it would give me a chance to bring my points about heaven and hell to the public.

Once you chimed in with questions about how likely it would be for me to miss an 800 in half the time the jig was up. I temporarily ressurected the challenge when it again looked like some people might accept even though they weren't that certain to score 800. But since you know some incredibly rare freak, you again immediately chimed in and made it obvious that the only taker I would find would be someone who would tie me. That would not only waste my time but also be a setback for my OBVIOUSLY CORRECT assertion.

The point is that the scheme was legitimate. I wasn't cheating because there is some very small chance I would miss an 800. Of course at first takers any or may not have been in my league. You ended that possibility.

Meanwhile it would be wrong to say that tying the challenge to fundamentalists was disengenuous. Because I could have offerred it to any group. Not true. Because for this offer to be good for me, I needed there to be an incredibly small number of possibilities to exist who I wouldn't be a nice favorite over. And a larger number of possibilities who would be too stupid to realize that their 780s had almost no chance. So I would have been wrong to offer the challenge to Chinese Americans, for instance.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-25-2007, 03:11 PM
David Sklansky David Sklansky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,092
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, Jaynes (not Jensen) is the creator of the maximum entropy principle which, together with the indifference principle, form two of the fundamental ideas in his version of logical probability. The larger philosophical picture of logical probability is certainly up for debate -- a debate which is not generally the playground of mathematicians -- but the mathematical side of his work and ideas is well-represented in the mathematical community, as a quick search of MathSciNet will reveal.

Second, I have quite a bit of experience teaching many courses ranging from freshman calculus to graduate level courses on stochastic integration and differential equations. I am a professor of mathematics and, in particular, a probabilist. You, on the other hand, I would wager, are (at best) an arrogant graduate student who thinks he knows everything. Yet you do not even understand the difference between the mathematics of probability and the philosophical interpretations of probability. You made your ignorance of this distinction, as well as your arrogance, evident in your third post in SMP.

Since I do not appreciate being personally attacked, I will unfortunately have to forgo the mild entertainment that your conceited, know-it-all ramblings sometimes provide. God bless the ignore list.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait. He agrees with you about infintesimals.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-25-2007, 03:38 PM
felson felson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,177
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

David, you're just rehashing the story that you have told four times already. I suppose that is your way to avoid responding to the claims that your challenge was ill-conceived and misleading at best. I don't need to explain why: you've cited some (but far from all) flaws yourself in this thread.

Perhaps the challenge was plus-EV for you, but as you acknowledge, it was more "publicity stunt" than a teaching device. To be explicit, we are talking about a challenge where the outcome settles nothing. (A DS loss is dismissed as an outlier. And even you now acknowledge that a DS win would most likely be caused by a rash challenger. But of course you didn't say anything about that until you decided to withdraw the challenge!) This challenge reveals you to be more hustler than teacher. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't appropriate the other title.

Regarding your repeated story, if my posts have somehow led you to believe that I didn't grasp all your points already, then your reading comprehension is poor.

My mind boggles that you still think I have some challenger for you. I don't, and I have already recounted the many reasons why this would not be worth my time. Even if I had someone to challenge you with, I would hardly go about it in this roundabout fashion. Finally, in case there is any confusion, I will repeat for the record that I am not a fundamentalist.

And I find it insulting and revealing that you thought 2p2ers are so dumb as not to consider (and openly discuss) the likelihood that you would offer a challenge on which you did not have a virtual lock. If you are a hustler, you are a poor one.

[ QUOTE ]
So I would have been wrong to offer the challenge to Chinese Americans, for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that you are 98% to score perfectly! In addition, you wished you could open the challenge to all women. So offering the challenge to anyone doesn't mean much.

I asked you twice to comment on my points A and B above. This is so typical of you, David.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-26-2007, 07:01 PM
alebron alebron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 120
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

I has a theory:

Imagine you've always been smarter (more informed, better with logic, etc) than just about everyone else around you. In any non-stupid argument with a random person, you're a favorite to be right. Years and years of this conditions you (in a Bayesian way), when in a disagreement, to assume that the other person is wrong, since most of the time they actually are. Saves you a lot of time, and it usually works out for you. Over the years, as you get older, you get lazy. You think up some notion, mess around with it in your head for a while, it passes the smell test, so you believe it to be true. You publish it, and someone (whether smart or dumb doesn't matter, but probably smart) argues that it's false. Since, from your point of view, he's likely to be wrong, you assume you're right and figure out what it was, other than the idea itself, that made this person mistakenly believe you're wrong. Hence all the evasion.

It's hard be aware of and to fight that process. Average or dumb people don't have this problem almost at all, since they're wrong much more often, so the Bayesian engine doesn't get to work its magic nearly as much.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-29-2007, 01:02 PM
felson felson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,177
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

DS has given up on this discussion. If it were someone else, I would suspect that he had grown bored. However, DS has been so evasive in his many posts here that I can only conclude that he knows that I am right.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-12-2007, 05:18 AM
borisp borisp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 201
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

Sorry to rehash an old thread, but upon reawakening my interest in 2+2, this thread arose...

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, Jaynes (not Jensen) is the creator of the maximum entropy principle which, together with the indifference principle, form two of the fundamental ideas in his version of logical probability.

[/ QUOTE ]
busted

[ QUOTE ]
The larger philosophical picture of logical probability is certainly up for debate -- a debate which is not generally the playground of mathematicians --

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because we are quick to recognize the inconsistency of your assumptions.

[ QUOTE ]
but the mathematical side of his work and ideas is well-represented in the mathematical community, as a quick search of MathSciNet will reveal.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummmm....yea...Mr Professor champion...the articles that appear on MathSciNet are to be read with a grain of salt...certainly they told you that in professor school?

[ QUOTE ]

Second, I have quite a bit of experience teaching many courses ranging from freshman calculus to graduate level courses on stochastic integration and differential equations. I am a professor of mathematics and, in particular, a probabilist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Holy [censored]. I bet you would be amazed at the applicants your random no-name university accepts. Furthermore, what do your students say on their evaluation forms?

[ QUOTE ]
You, on the other hand, I would wager, are (at best) an arrogant graduate student who thinks he knows everything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet you do not even understand the difference between the mathematics of probability and the philosophical interpretations of probability. You made your ignorance of this distinction, as well as your arrogance, evident in your third post in SMP.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is where I draw the line. I am not ignorant with regard to probability and the philosophical interpretations of probability; I simply choose to reject the latter based on an investigation of the foundations of the theory.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-12-2007, 01:54 PM
David Sklansky David Sklansky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,092
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

Mind saying what school you are at?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-12-2007, 02:04 PM
tpir tpir is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,337
Default Re: A Compendium of Sklansky Fallacies

[ QUOTE ]
DS has given up on this discussion. If it were someone else, I would suspect that he had grown bored. However, DS has been so evasive in his many posts here that I can only conclude that he knows that I am right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right about what? I have read this thread a few times now and the people who are trying to rabidly pile on Sklansky and nit his posts look like huge tools imo.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.