alright, now apply this logic to every single possible crisis, however minute, facing us right now. logically, we should spend trillions of dollars going to "column A" to face all these threats, right? what a fucking idiot.
[QUOTE=JimmeyJohns;26368488]Here guys, check out this diagram I made.
[img_thumb]http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg284/fatsuds/religion.jpg[/img_thumb]
Interesting...[/QUOTE]
Fixed that for you.
[img]http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8355/religionp.jpg[/img]
And thus the flaw in his reasoning.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;26380908]alright, now apply this logic to every single possible crisis, however minute, facing us right now. logically, we should spend trillions of dollars going to "column A" to face all these threats, right? what a fucking idiot.[/QUOTE]
He said at the start that we should agree that it's both possible to be false and true.
We can say with 99.99999999999999999999% certainty that space wasps aren't going to be attacking soon.
[QUOTE=TheGuru;26381675]He said at the start that we should agree that it's both possible to be false and true.
We can say with 99.99999999999999999999% certainty that space wasps aren't going to be attacking soon.[/QUOTE]
But it is possible to be true or false that space wasps will attack in 2014, you've stated that this is highly unlikely; how do you know that it's unlikely? Well for one thing we don't know of the existance of spacewasps, or that if they even did exist they would want to attack Earth. See you've factored in this and other evidence to arrive at this conclusion which is exactly what the man in the video is telling you not to do. He tells you not to look at the rows of his chart but to look at the columns as his system does not focus on the validity of the idea only the consequences of it being true or false, therfore this same argument can be applied to any other situation you can come up with, regardless of whether it is likely or not as it disregards any evidence and acts as though it being true or false are equally likely.
I'm tired hopefully this makes sense :v:
Cost? Global economic depression?
Are we paying aliens or something?
The money stays on earth...
[QUOTE=Oddshot;26376699]It's surprising how something that seems so simple is so brilliant.
Someone should give that man a medal.[/QUOTE]
It's nothing new really.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager[/url]
[QUOTE=CyberWatt;26384467]Cost? Global economic depression?
Are we paying aliens or something?
The money stays on earth...[/QUOTE]
The money and resources is gone to waste.
Sure we have assets but, it'll be hard to convert it back into cash.
Bump for helpful decisive skills.
I wish to see more diagrams, they're great to read.
I'm apathetic about global warming, but looking at GCC False/Column A (top left) I don't see how that would lead to global economic depression. You spend money on something, the money doesn't just disappear.
Maybe just maybe the environmental engineers could even do it for free (gasp!) with resources supplied from multiple governments (gasp!) so that we don't all shrivel up or freeze or whatever-the-2012-fuck is supposed to happen
...And the only consequences, are Dread and The Fugitive Mind.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;26355379]this is incredibly dumb and flawed logic that everyone hops on because he looks nerdy and talks for a long time[/QUOTE]
god damn rusty how are you even a moderator i'm so dumbfounded
Because he's not stupid? He's right you know. It's better to inform yourself than to line up vague possibilities and choosing from the best set. Heck, without informing yourself you don't even know if your vague possibilities are in any way accurate and so any decision made from those will be wrong.
[QUOTE=BmB;26443119]Because he's not stupid? He's right you know. It's better to inform yourself than to line up vague possibilities and choosing from the best set. Heck, without informing yourself you don't even know if your vague possibilities are in any way accurate and so any decision made from those will be wrong.[/QUOTE]
The logic is not flawed, albeit the possibilities a tad simple and not quite what would happen, but the idea is true. You should pick from the choice that overall has a lesser chance of fucking your asshole, better safe than sorry basically. And yes you can use it for really obscure things like that space wasps thing on the 1st page, but there is no proof of that at all ever, whereas global warming is a possibility and is theorized by many credible scientists
[QUOTE=JimmeyJohns;26368488]Here guys, check out this diagram I made.
[img_thumb]http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg284/fatsuds/religion.jpg[/img_thumb]
Interesting...[/QUOTE]
you Mean if God Exist
They showed us this in class
[QUOTE=phenomomnom;26443989]They showed us this in class[/QUOTE]
Lucky.
I couldn't hear anything past his fucking gigantic beaver teeth.
Probably a shitty argument anyway.
[QUOTE=Sprocket Shit;26473320]I couldn't hear anything past his fucking gigantic beaver teeth.
Probably a shitty argument anyway.[/QUOTE]
You ignorant slut.
[QUOTE=Errorproxy;26474883]You ignorant slut.[/QUOTE]
He is a very shallow person. He used to rate people on how they look, 1-10 and point out their flaws etc, but I've never seen him post a picture of himself.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26443144]The logic is not flawed, albeit the possibilities a tad simple and not quite what would happen, but the idea is true. You should pick from the choice that overall has a lesser chance of fucking your asshole, better safe than sorry basically. And yes you can use it for really obscure things like that space wasps thing on the 1st page, but there is no proof of that at all ever, whereas global warming is a possibility and is theorized by many credible scientists[/QUOTE]
His logic is very common and you probably use it in day to day life; I personally use it in poker a lot (odds of winning against amount won). This logic is only useful if and only if the probability of global warming occurring is somehow determined to be a plausible probability (like even 1% chance). Until that probability is established, we can do nothing. Otherwise we'd better start preparing for a space wasp invasion as well.
The only scary part of the video is that he literally urges us to give up attempting to predict whether global warming is even possible beyond reasonable doubt and just look at the cost of loosing the bet. The second global warming becomes a plausible future, we'll do something about it.
[QUOTE=Sprocket Shit;26473320]I couldn't hear anything past his fucking gigantic beaver teeth.
Probably a shitty argument anyway.[/QUOTE]
Still trollin' breh?
Wait what?
He's right and all yadda yadda but he sort of said out the obvious.
[QUOTE=Frozen_Fish;26380246]Flawed logic
[media]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2383/chartpj.png[/media][/QUOTE]
It seems that his argument would have been helped if he included the credibility of the risk as a factor.
[QUOTE=ShnitzelKiller;26477275]It seems that his argument would have been helped if he included the credibility of the risk as a factor.[/QUOTE]
He did mention that in the video.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
