why so angry?

Originally posted by knightmeister
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.

None of these scenarios are measurably plausible. That's the point, KM.
The likelihood that the breeze will blow the fuse close enough to the
bomb such that it will ignite it is comparable to the likelihood that a
lit fuse will attract the attention of someone who knows it shouldn't be
lit.

You cannot measure the probability of any of these silly scenarios and
there are an infinitude of them which means they are statistically
meaningless. That's why it is reasonable to conclude that they do not
enter into the probabilistic calculus -- we don't know how many of them
there are and we don't know their likelihood to abet or thwart the goal.
It's like the heads-coin-eating monster in my coin flip scenario.

We do know that a lit and connected fuse will increase the likelihood
of the bombs exploding, and that an unconnected, lit fuse or connected,
unlit fuse will not. Only when both criteria are met does the likelihood
measurably increase. The rest is just fantasizing on the likelihood you
prefer (you like it to increase, DrS likes it to decrease).

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Imagine 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 withi ...[text shortened]... it will be ignited when the sword falls.

RATING: not too hard to imagine, not too likely.

Now that's better . You have created a scenario where it is actually advantageous to light the fuse and more risky to not light.

I think your rating was a bit biased. Not too likely????


My scenario now.... central park again leave the sword juggler in and donald. The sword juggler doesn#t drop a sword. You light the fuse. A fire starts from a piece of rubbish or old newspaper , lets say it's summer and the bushes are dry and you get a decent fire near the bomb BOOM!

RATING- More likely to happen than your scenario and more plausible . Many ways in which the fire can start. Fires probably have started in central park via stray matches etc .So I have precedent as well. Once again quality versus quantity.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Oh my god...you need to ask?

Well, yes, because under my understanding of probability, even though it is less likely that the Ace of Hearts is on the top of deck than it is that a Club is on top of the deck, it is equally likely that the top card is red as it is that the top card is black. Figure out how this applies to the issue at hand, and how it relates to my question, and your understanding will have grown by leaps and bounds.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Now that's better . You have created a scenario where it is actually advantageous to light the fuse and more risky to not light.

I think your rating was a bit biased. Not too likely????


My scenario now.... central park again leave the sword juggler in and donald. The sword juggler doesn#t drop a sword. You light the fuse. A fire starts from a ...[text shortened]... l park via stray matches etc .So I have precedent as well. Once again quality versus quantity.

Imagine this. The Central Park scene again. This time, the sword juggler is just crazy and decides that he will detonate the bomb if and only if I don't light the fuse within the next minute. If I do light the fuse, he will stomp it out and sell the bomb to Donald for $10.

RATING: Not too hard to imagine, not too likely.

Originally posted by Nemesio
None of these scenarios are measurably plausible. That's the point, KM.
The likelihood that the breeze will blow the fuse close enough to the
bomb such that it will ignite it is comparable to the likelihood that a
lit fuse will attract the attention of someone who knows it shouldn't be
lit.

You cannot measure the probability of any of these ...[text shortened]... the likelihood you
prefer (you like it to increase, DrS likes it to decrease).

Nemesio

The likelihood that the breeze will blow the fuse close enough to the
bomb such that it will ignite it is comparable to the likelihood that a
lit fuse will attract the attention of someone who knows it shouldn't be
lit. NEMESIO


So lets say that there is a 100000-1 chance that the breeze will do this and a 50 -50 chance that the fuse will be spotted before the breeze gets a chance. That would mean a doubling of the chances against the breeze doing this and igniting the bomb to 10000000000-1 . It would not negate the risk even though I gave you generous 50-50 odds of the fuse being spotted and put out.

Just because it's just as likely that something will be prevented as it won't be prevented does not negate the risk but just reduces it.


Do the maths.

The emperor still has no clothes on and I'm looking for another little boy here? Where are you?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Imagine this. The Central Park scene again. This time, the sword juggler is just crazy and decides that he will detonate the bomb if and only if I don't light the fuse within the next minute. If I do light the fuse, he will stomp it out and sell the bomb to Donald for $10.

RATING: Not too hard to imagine, not too likely.

The Central Park scene again. This time, the sword juggler is crazy and decides that after I light the fuse he will connect it and blow us all up.


Rating- Even easier to imagine because there are less complex steps involved and me lighting the fuse could possibly suggest the idea to him in his head. More likely than yours because there's less steps involved.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The Central Park scene again. This time, the sword juggler is crazy and decides that after I light the fuse he will connect it and blow us all up.


Rating- Even easier to imagine because there are less complex steps involved and me lighting the fuse could possibly suggest the idea to him in his head. More likely than yours because there's less steps involved.

Imagine this. The Central Park scene again. This time there are two of my jugglers and one of yours, and mine will beat yours up before he can detonate the bomb so that they can each get $5 from Donald.

RATING: really easy to imagine, not too likely

Originally posted by Nemesio
None of these scenarios are measurably plausible. That's the point, KM.
The likelihood that the breeze will blow the fuse close enough to the
bomb such that it will ignite it is comparable to the likelihood that a
lit fuse will attract the attention of someone who knows it shouldn't be
lit.

You cannot measure the probability of any of these ...[text shortened]... the likelihood you
prefer (you like it to increase, DrS likes it to decrease).

Nemesio

It's like the heads-coin-eating monster in my coin flip scenario.

We do know that a lit and connected fuse will increase the likelihood
of the bombs exploding, and that an unconnected, lit fuse or connected,
unlit fuse will not. Only when both criteria are met does the likelihood
measurably increaseNEMESIO

But you take this as a given and I don't . It's not the same as the heads coin eating monster at all because there is a precedent for explosives and ignition of any kind being risky bed fellows. You take it as read that lighting the fuse and creating ignition does not present any risk at all. I do not . You might as well say "you are wrong because you are wrong." I dispute what you unthinkingly assume to be a grounded first premise.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, yes, because under my understanding of probability, even though it is less likely that the Ace of Hearts is on the top of deck than it is that a Club is on top of the deck, it is equally likely that the top card is red as it is that the top card is black. Figure out how this applies to the issue at hand, and how it relates to my question, and your understanding will have grown by leaps and bounds.

I do understand and this is why I ask how can it be shown that it is equally likley that a lit fuse (red card) will prevent detonation than an unlit fuse (black card). I can see how not lighting the fuse prevents detonation much easier than I can see how lighting it prevents detonation. And I can see how lighting a fuse is more likely to cause some form of detonation than I can see how not lighting it is going to cause it . Why do you think differently?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I do understand and this is why I ask how can it be shown that it is equally likley that a lit fuse (red card) will prevent detonation than an unlit fuse (black card). I can see how not lighting the fuse prevents detonation much easier than I can see how lighting it prevents detonation. Why do you think differently?

Because I have a better imagination.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Because I have a better imagination.

But the more imaginative you have to be is very suggestive of how less likely your scenarios are to mine. In this argument being less imaginative is an advantage because it shows you don't have to work as hard to create scenarios which thus shows that they are more plausible and probable.

Incidently I would bet my imagination is just as good but I'm not having to use it at present to create wicked witch scenarios to support my argument.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But the more imaginative you have to be is very suggestive of how less likely your scenarios are to mine. In this argument being less imaginative is an advantage because it shows you don't have to work as hard to create scenarios which thus shows that they are more plausible and probable.

Ah, but eventually you'll run out of scenarios, and then I'll have the edge. It doesn't matter how unlikely mine are as long as I can imagine enough of them to balance the probability of all the more likely ones that you imagine. Right?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Imagine this. The Central Park scene again. This time there are two of my jugglers and one of yours, and mine will beat yours up before he can detonate the bomb so that they can each get $5 from Donald.

RATING: really easy to imagine, not too likely

Ok my turn...

Trafalgar square , Doctor Scribbles waits for knightmeister to walk by and lights the fuse , connects it and runs , knightmeister loses the argument because he's dead and can't create any more scenarios. Doctor Scribbles wins by default even though he knows he's been talking xxxx for the last few hours. But hey if you can't win by argument.....

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Ah, but eventually you'll run out of scenarios, and then I'll have the edge. It doesn't matter how unlikely mine are as long as I can imagine enough of them to balance the probability of all the more likely ones that you imagine. Right?

Wrong . Because you could do that with anything. If I set you the task of proving that jumping off a cliff is less risky than not jumping off a cliff you could achieve the same thing by the same method and create endless scenarios etc to "balance" mine , but you would still be wrong.

Have a think about why.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok my turn...

Trafalgar square , Doctor Scribbles waits for knightmeister to walk by and lights the fuse , connects it and runs , knightmeister loses the argument because he's dead and can't create any more scenarios. Doctor Scribbles wins by default even though he knows he's been talking xxxx for the last few hours. But hey if you can't win by argument.....

Imagine this. There is a five hundred pound bomb with two very long fuses, one connected, the other disconnected. The connected fuse is lit and will detonate the bomb in one hour unless the bomb is thrown in the ocean. The unconnected fuse leads through an area where a strong man competition has just finished. If I light the fuse, it will attract the interest of multiple strong men who will follow the fuse to find the bomb and will then throw it in the ocean. If I do not light the fuse, not enough muscle power will be drawn to the bomb to throw it in the ocean.

RATING: easy to imagine, not too likely.