Originally posted by LemonJellothen Scribs goes and comes up with a hypothetical under which the lighting of the unconnected fuse would, if anything, have the opposite effect. LEMON
Somebody shoot me. Please.
The whole point of the game was that you come up with a hypothetical under which the lighting of the unconnected fuse would, if anything, make detonation more probable; then Scribs goes and comes up with a hypothetical under which the lighting of the unconnected fuse would, if anything, have the opposite effect.
So ...[text shortened]... seem to have just admitted that Scribs' first example was successful in your own estimation.
Let me explain.
My scenario involves a sitaution where it is better to NOT light the fuse than to light it. The way this can be equalised by Scribs is to create a scenario where it is better to LIGHT the fuse than it is to just leave it. This would then be an equalling out of the risk and probabilty AT SOURCE.
The reason why this is so is because although in Scribs scenario the sprinklers come on , in other scenarios the sprinklers may not or they may be too late etc etc. These other scenarios are avoided and eliminated at source by not lighting the fuse at all.
So even though the effect of scribs scenario has a nullifying or opposite effect on the fuse it is not the only scenario possible and it only nullifies the very risk it has created.
I showed in my scenario how lighting the fuse was a bad idea now Scribs needs to show how lighting the fuse is a good idea in a different scenario AND show that his scenario is just as likely as mine , then and only then will the scores be even.
The sprinkler one did not do this because lighting the fuse was still not a good idea and the wicked witch didn't either because it was not as plausible as mine.
Which is less risky? To take the safety catch off a gun and then put it on again or just not take it off?
Now think it through even deeper , really think this time.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitOK, I'm going to have some fun with these questions.
OK, I'm going to have some fun with these questions.So you think it probable that barrs scenario exists floating in space or something? -KM
Highly probable. There's much more space than there is planetary atmosphere.You think it impossible that there may be something ignitable around? -KM
Well, there was that fuse ...[text shortened]... ozen or not, so I cannot tell. Perhaps some mischievous saboteur did it without his knowledge.
..don't have fun , make sense.
Well, there was that fuse thing. Then again, bbarr did not say whether the fuse was frozen or not, so I cannot tell.SWISS
So lets say that there are some scenarios where it is frozen that might still leave others where it is functional. You may reduce the probability of detonation but how are you going to be able to eliminate it ? But then if barrs fuse was never functional in the first place what was the point of him making that analogy , it would be a farce!
(as if this isn't already a farce)
Barrs analogy only works if the fuse could be potentially lit ( which incidentally would need oxygen which makes your space idea look foolish , of course you could say that it was on a space station but then that would be dangerous , lit fuses and oxygen tanks? tsk tsk)
Originally posted by NemesioJust when scribs was going to tell me how wicked witches were just as likely as accidental fires?? I would hang around for that one if I were you!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That wavy line above is my towel. I've thrown it in. This is gone beyond
the absurdity threshold for me.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThe bomb example is meant merely to illustrate that we often ascribe to effects joint causes that are individually insufficient to bring about that effect. To put the point in another way, sometimes we say of an effect that it was caused by both this and that, where this wouldn't have been sufficient to elicit the effect on its own and neither would have that. BARR
Yikes, you are so deeply confused. Let me try this again:
The example I brought up was meant to illustrate what I took to be a simple and untendentious point, namely (as has been reiterated here by no fewer than four people) that there exist individually insufficient but jointly sufficient casual forces. That is, there are innumerable cases where i stemic probability is simply a measure of the evidence we have at our disposal[/i].
I totally get this man.(and did from the start) You are saying that if two things are neccessary to make something happen we can't say that the effect depends on either cause because they are needed together.
So why didn't you just say this instead of bringing old probability to the party . He changed the entire meaning of your analogy.
Incidently this is a truism since no causes happen independently in the natural world , all can be shown to be dependent on a previous causal link. (The uncaused cause being the exception)
Originally posted by knightmeisterWow, you really cannot work within hypotheticals, can you? Who cares about "other scenarios"? In the Dr's hypothetical, the sprinklers automatically come on with effect.
The reason why this is so is because although in Scribs scenario the sprinklers come on , in other scenarios the sprinklers may not or they may be too late etc etc. These other scenarios are avoided and eliminated at source by not lighting the fuse at all.
So even though the effect of scribs scenario has a nullifying or opposite effect on the fuse it is not the only scenario possible and it only nullifies the very risk it has created.
You also just keep stating that lighting the unconnected fuse itself constitutes a "risk". You obviously base this on the sort of selective conjecturing already discussed in this thread. So you just cannot seem to work within the boundaries of available information.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI showed in my scenario how lighting the fuse was a bad idea now Scribs needs to show how lighting the fuse is a good idea in a different scenario AND show that his scenario is just as likely as mine , then and only then will the scores be even
Wow, you really cannot work within hypotheticals, can you? Who cares about "other scenarios"? In the Dr's hypothetical, the sprinklers automatically come on with effect.
You also just keep stating that lighting the unconnected fuse itself constitutes a "risk". You obviously base this on the sort of selective conjecturing already discussed in this thread. So you just cannot seem to work within the boundaries of available information.
This is the only way to negate me properly because he has to show the same effect as I have done in reverse. In other words its not an equivalent example.
Man 1 " Taking that safety catch off is risky because I can think of scenarios where the gun might go off like you dropping the gun"
Man2" But in my scenario if I take the safety catch off then you will feel scared and negate the risk by putting it back on again - the effect would be negated and the risk eliminated because I can think of as many scenarios where you will put it back on"
Man1" Do you really think that makes things equal? You think taking the catch off is neither risky or safe because of this? You think your argument the equal of mine"
Man2 "Oh I see , best not to take the catch off at all. That way the risk I am negating doesn't even occur. "
Originally posted by LemonJelloNow think it through even deeper , really think this time.
Wow, you really cannot work within hypotheticals, can you? Who cares about "other scenarios"? In the Dr's hypothetical, the sprinklers automatically come on with effect.
You also just keep stating that lighting the unconnected fuse itself constitutes a "risk". You obviously base this on the sort of selective conjecturing already discussed in this thread. So you just cannot seem to work within the boundaries of available information.
Originally posted by NemesioNo when I am know I have a point I stick to my guns. I have no problem with being in a minority of one if I feel I have thought it through. Right from the start certain individuals have just presumed that I was an idiot and have not really engaged with the argument properly.
My, you have a lot of chutzpah.
I showed in my scenario how lighting the fuse was a bad idea now Scribs needs to show how lighting the fuse is a good idea in a different scenario AND show that his scenario is just as likely as mine , then and only then will the scores be even
My next scenario...is it my turn...
The fuse is lit in the hope that the sprinklers come on and douse the flame , the sprinklers have been poorly maintained and the carpet catches fire etc etc you can gusee the rest BOOM!
RATING- Very unlikely because it would be foolish to light the fuse in the hope that it will be doused.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI did not. I assumed that you genuinely wanted to understand why you
Right from the start certain individuals have just presumed that I was an idiot and have not really engaged with the argument properly.
were wrong. But you are, in the face of argument after argument, insisting
that you are right. This is why I have given up: either you are, in fact, an
idiot or you haven't examined what I and other people have written.
Either way -- either a lack of capacity or a lack of effort -- the result is
the same: you will languish in ignorance.
If this doesn't bother you, then that's fine with me. If you are genuinely
opened to the possibility that you are in fact wrong (which you are), then
revisit my and other people's posts and reflect on them rather than applying
the innocent martyr complex in which everyone is confused and you are
sticking to your guns under persecution.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterImagine this. Donald Trump will pick up anything of value that he finds laying in the street. There is an antique bomb worth $1,000,000 dollars lying near a path in Central Park where Trump is walking, and a novice street performer juggling flaming swords just past the bomb. Imagine that the performer will drop a sword near the fuse and bomb within the next minute. If I light the fuse now, it will catch Donald's eye and he will save the bomb before it detonates. If I don't light the fuse, it won't catch his attention and it will be ignited when the sword falls.
My next scenario...is it my turn...
The fuse is lit in the hope that the sprinklers come on and douse the flame , the sprinklers have been poorly maintained and the carpet catches fire etc etc you can gusee the rest BOOM!
RATING- Very unlikely because it would be foolish to light the fuse in the hope that it will be doused.
RATING: not too hard to imagine, not too likely.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOh my god...you need to ask?
Why should this be a condition?
Because we are trying to ascertain the probability that the detonation will occur . You need to show that not lighting the fuse is just as risky as lighting it. OR that lighting the fuse is just as preventative as not lighting it.
I can show plausible scenarios where lighting the fuse is risky. Can you show the opposite. If you can't then we would need to conclude that lighting the fuse is the most risky (even though the risk may be very small). If it is the most risky option then lighting the fuse must raise the probability of detonation MORE than it decreases it.
It is for this reason you must show how lighting the fuse DECREASES the probability of detonation not just NEGATES a risk.
Come on!!!!! Think even harder! Increases in risk must be equalised by decreases. It's not enough to negate it! Think of it like a set of scales Its like saying 2-2 = 2
You have yet to show in a meaningful way how lighting the fuse decreases the risk. You have only shown how an increased risk could negate itself. How is lighting the fuse supposed to decrease the risk of detonation?
BTW My internet will be out for a day , when I come back You may have had a breakthrough.
Originally posted by knightmeisterOnly my first example failed in this regard, because I didn't yet know we were playing by your biased rules. My latter three fulfill it, don't they? Do you assert that in any of them, it is less risky to leave the fuse unlit?
You have yet to show in a meaningful way how lighting the fuse decreases the risk. You have only shown how an increased risk could negate itself. How is lighting the fuse supposed to decrease the risk of detonation?