How small must the chance of error be before we accept something as true and certain?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: How small must the chance of error be before we accept something as true and certain?
Next: Small enought to fit in the title or subject line.
From: Bret Cahill on 3 Aug 2010 17:40 > > > Nothing is true and certain, > > > It's certain > > ...that the Big Carbon Conspiracy Just because you Lyndon LaRouche winger dingers think 99% of the scientists on the planet are in on a century old conspiracy doesn't mean educated folk think you conspiracy theorists are any thing more but isolated ignorant winger dingers. And you keeps dodgin' 'n dodgin' The Question: Who set you up with that Lyndon LaRouche link to a dowser?
From: Shrikeback on 3 Aug 2010 17:59 On Aug 3, 2:40 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > > > Nothing is true and certain, > > > > It's certain > > > ...that the Big Carbon Conspiracy > > Just Shh! Big Carbon will hear you. That tinfoil over your windows can't keep them out.
From: Bret Cahill on 3 Aug 2010 18:12 > > > Nothing is true and certain, > > > It's certain > > ...that the Big Carbon Conspiracy Yer projectin' again. Just because you Lyndon LaRouche winger dingers think 99% of the scientists on the planet are in on a century old conspiracy doesn't mean educated folk think you conspiracy theorists are anything more but isolated ignorant winger dingers. And you keeps a dodgin' 'n dodgin' The Question: Who set you up with that Lyndon LaRouche link to a dowser?
From: Fabrizio J Bonsignore on 4 Aug 2010 12:59
Sorry... the answer lies in science but is elsewhere. You are posing different fallacies, one of which is solved through the ex ante/ex post conception in economics. Then strictly speaking error is defined in terms of knowledge and lack of knowledge so your problem is empiric, whether you can TEST any ticket or not! If you cannot TEST any ticket, the lottery had not taken place! If you hide the winner number for ever and cannot test it... it is no lottery but a scam! Then you are arguing a priori before it takes place at all, but _hypothetically_ even hens can do physics! In equilibrium, no matter the number, your winning chance is 1/N and that is the probability of ANY particular number winning, the bigger the number, the more P approaches 0 til in infinity (pass to the limit), P=0. Now you are in sheer academic statistics and you will not find a method to win at all, but you want to decide your tecnical level of confidence and THAT is an economic theory. The paradox is apparent only and there is no contradiction but you changed referents somewhere in the middle of the argument and lumped time together. Basically what you say is that you TEST each ticket, then reject the winner and continue testing to verify the next ticket is not a winning ticket! At some point you are already certain ex post. And finally, all people will be sure they did not win but ONE. Their belief is consistent and real but uncertain til they test. ONE of them is WRONG, in ERROR and will realize the moment it tests. SO your argument is a common fallacy known as fallacy of composition: what is true for one is true for a group and viceversa, but that is not true. None of your players is honest in your argument, and that is the deep rationale to forbid gambling games and to regulate them with the State: if all are CERTAIN absolutely they did not win... why enter the lottery if it is voluntary and you know you lost BEFOREHAND? Because ALL expect to be WRONG and get a surprise! Or you would have a pack of dishonest crazies you better watch out. You are not discussing paradox or contradictions, you are discussing self deceit and emotional self manipulation... There may be other fallacies hidden in the argument, but this should be enough to exemplify it... Truth lies not in philosophy... Danilo J Bonsignore |