ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th October 2017, 01:25 AM   #2561
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And "HARKing" is not the problem with the argument, the problem with the argument is, again: P(E|I) > P(E|~I).
Agreed that that is, in broad terms, the fatal flaw with the argument. However, it hasn't been presented simply as a bare assertion; over the past five years Jabba has advanced a broad selection of arguments whose purpose was to justify the conclusion that P(E|I) >> P(E|~I). Those arguments are also fatally flawed, and have had to be disposed of one by one, because had any of them been valid, then P(E|I) >> P(E|~I) would have been established. So there is a level of error beneath the central flaw of the argument that's been created to try to remedy that flaw, and that lower level of error can't simply be handwaved away by saying its conclusion is wrong.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 05:58 AM   #2562
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,081
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Jabba's should be reasoning along the lines you state. But he's not; he's committing the fallacy of HARKing. He's reasoning as follows:

P(observed order | cards were stacked in the observed order) >>
P(observed order | card order was random) .

That's the fallacy. It's not just that his numbers are wrong; it's that he is conditioning on the wrong event in the lhs of the above inequality. He's conditioning on "cards were stacked in the observed order" instead of "cards were stacked in some order I hypothesized before I observed their order".
That's not HARKing though, that's just special pleading. This would be fine:

H1 = "cards were stacked in the observed order"
H2 = "cards were randomly shuffled in the observed order"

This would also be fine:

H1 = "cards were stacked"
H2 = "cards were randomly shuffled"

The problem isn't about when you hypothesize relative to when you observe the result, but the special pleading in only adding the constraint "in the observed order" to H1 and not to H2.

Quote:
Per standard mathematical usage, the comma means "and".
Huh, never seen it used before like that, I've always seen "n" (the set-intersection symbol) used.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 06:21 AM   #2563
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,081
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
However, it hasn't been presented simply as a bare assertion; over the past five years Jabba has advanced a broad selection of arguments whose purpose was to justify the conclusion that P(E|I) >> P(E|~I).
As far as I've seen (and granted, I've only read a small subset of these discussions) it has been presented as a bare assertion, usually stuck in on the sides, and mostly ignored in the discussion. Can you give some examples of such arguments?

Quote:
Those arguments are also fatally flawed, and have had to be disposed of one by one, because had any of them been valid, then P(E|I) >> P(E|~I) would have been established.
At least I'm not the only one mixing up "sound" and "valid"
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 06:26 AM   #2564
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As far as I've seen (and granted, I've only read a small subset of these discussions) it has been presented as a bare assertion, usually stuck in on the sides, and mostly ignored in the discussion. Can you give some examples of such arguments?
That's where you have to go back to Jay Utah's list; it's more or less a catalogue of those arguments and why they are either invalid or just unsound.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
At least I'm not the only one mixing up "sound" and "valid"
OK, fair point. None of them were sound, but for the most point I don't remember many of them being valid either.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 06:52 AM   #2565
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,081
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That's where you have to go back to Jay Utah's list; it's more or less a catalogue of those arguments and why they are either invalid or just unsound.
Which one of those is trying to establish P(E|~H) > P(E|H)? Because the only one I can find there which relates to P(E|~H) > P(E|H) calls it an unsupported assertion or something to that effect - ie Jabba wasn't making an argument for it but just asserting it. The rest doesn't even seem to relate to P(E|~H) > P(E|H).

Quote:
OK, fair point. None of them were sound, but for the most point I don't remember many of them being valid either.
I wasn't really making a point with that, just an observation.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 06:56 AM   #2566
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,903
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
If the equation is X + Y*Z^2 - 4 where X is the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, Y is how many roads a man can walk down before you can call him a man and Z is who put the ram in the ramalamadingdon the equation isn't the problem.
I don't know, but I'd like to shake his hand.

As for the equation, you are right. Jabba started with a conclusion and has tried to make up support for it in terms of flawed statistics and made up probabilities.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 05:44 PM   #2567
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
That's not HARKing though, that's just special pleading.
It is indeed HARKing. But whatever you want to call it, it is the fundamental error in Jabba's reasoning.

Quote:
The problem isn't about when you hypothesize relative to when you observe the result, but the special pleading in only adding the constraint "in the observed order" to H1 and not to H2.symbol) used.

HARKing is essentially formulating a hypothesis to fit an observation.

Last edited by jt512; 20th October 2017 at 06:17 PM.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:28 AM   #2568
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,081
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
It is indeed HARKing. But whatever you want to call it, it is the fundamental error in Jabba's reasoning.

HARKing is essentially formulating a hypothesis to fit an observation.
Then how come the problem is not formulating a hypothesis to fit an observation but failing to do so? Recall your earlier example:

P(observed order | cards were stacked in the observed order) =
P(observed order | card order was random in the observed order) .

I've added the bit in highlight, thereby fixing it. As you can see the bit highlighted is exactly what you call "HARKing". Therefor HARKing is not the problem.

There's no real problem with formulating a hypothesis after the results are known, in some cases it may be all you can do (history, astronomy, ...). You just have to be consistent about it and account for the known result in all your hypotheses (see, again, the highlighted bit above). It's fine to make hypotheses where you don't account for known results, it's also fine to make hypotheses where you do account for known results. What you can't do, though, is have some hypotheses of the former variety mixed in with some hypotheses of the latter variety.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:00 AM   #2569
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,720
Somehow this thread has become even more of a train wreck without Jabba.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.