Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

What do you think about this?

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 11:30:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't think his argument is as fool-proof as he claims but it's still something to consider.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 11:55:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
His reasoning is not incorrect. It's a simple choice; which option, if you're wrong, will have less consequences? Choose that option if you're interested in self-preservation.

But he should have talked about the "risk" factor as well. Otherwise, his argument is essentially a modified version of Pascal's Wager. The 'risk factor' is which option will turn out to be the correct one? Which one has a better probability of being correct? If you can't factor in that, then just picking between the "columns" will always give you a 50/50 chance. Humans are inclined to always try for better odds.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 12:00:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/11/2010 11:55:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
His reasoning is not incorrect. It's a simple choice; which option, if you're wrong, will have less consequences? Choose that option if you're interested in self-preservation.

But he should have talked about the "risk" factor as well. Otherwise, his argument is essentially a modified version of Pascal's Wager. The 'risk factor' is which option will turn out to be the correct one? Which one has a better probability of being correct? If you can't factor in that, then just picking between the "columns" will always give you a 50/50 chance. Humans are inclined to always try for better odds.

Right, besides there being the possibility that one scenario may be considerably more likely than the other, there is also a possibility that ignored global warming may have considerably less harmful effects than the other scenario.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 12:30:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree with Volkov, this is Pascal's Wager in a sense. The problem the speaker is not addressing, much like proponents of Pascal's wager, is simply that that one choice is being underestimated. The first column could easily produce the results of the second as a global depression would mean famine, war, possible nuclear attacks, etc. and all of it being unnecessary. The same applies to Pascal as believing in "God" does not alleviate one believing in the wrong God.

I support much of the science concerning global warming, but I would not use this argument to support it.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 12:50:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What everyone else says. This guy is fail - if we applied this kind of reasoning throughout our lives the result would be quite ...weird.

It's understandable to do a risk-analysis when deciding policy, but the number one importance is ...which option is likely to be correct (duh).
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 1:01:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ha, that vid has been going around for a few years. Politicians use the same rhetoric, at least in Aus - 'even if you are a skeptic, and even if you are right - we should make policy on the chance you are not right'.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 10:48:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
also, in the "True/yes" box you can prolly add stuff like sea level rises/floods, dustbowl and the like...

Or at least the possibility of all that stuff....

For who's to say that we can stop it so effectively we avoid all problems associated with it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."