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.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Closed Thread
Old 12th October 2017, 08:22 AM   #2481
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,503
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
6.2. an unimaginably small number for the prior probability of me currently existing
A number you just pulled out of a dark place and which has nothing to do with any knowledge or evidence.

Quote:
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
Which, of course, it is.

Quote:
8. Am I using the formula properly?
No, no part of your model is correct. You were told why, but you don't care. You know you're wrong, and you know why you're wrong. The question is why you're back with the same old nonsense, if not simply to get attention.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 08:44 AM   #2482
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The question is why you're back with the same old nonsense, if not simply to get attention.

It's all the fault of JoeBentley, or mine . He's been evoked

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post12021514
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 08:50 AM   #2483
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,149
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
Explain your understanding of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy again for the first time. I want to be sure my understanding is the same as yours. Yours seems to be.... non-standard.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 08:54 AM   #2484
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: 25,324
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
[...] again for the first time.
Dear god, I wish that could have been a grammatical error.

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 Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:20 AM   #2485
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,848
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
1. Iím back!
2. Canít help myself.
3. Simple Bayesian formula: P(I|E)=P(E|I)*P(I)/P(E)
4. I: Iím immortal
5. E: I currently exist
6. If I allow for
6.1. a 1% prior probability for my immortality, and
6.2. an unimaginably small number for the prior probability of me currently existing, and
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
7.1. P(I|E)=1*.01/.00000000000Ö1=.9999999Ö9, and
7.2. I must be immortal.
8. Am I using the formula properly?
No. Just... no.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:22 AM   #2486
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,005
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Dear god, I wish that could have been a grammatical error.

Dave
ROFL. You owe me a keyboard. You have to admit, it was linguistic genius.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:35 AM   #2487
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,021
Asking the same question over and over, expecting the answer to be different is what, again?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 12:34 AM   #2488
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,893
Please make the Jabba nonsense stop.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 12:44 AM   #2489
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,919
I was really hoping this thread had died.

You might have thought that Jabba, if he did return, would have a new argument, or at least an actual defence of the old one, rather than just the same nonsense that's been utterly destroyed dozens of times already. You might have thought that, if you hadn't been following this thread since its beginning and consequently known what a forlorn hope it was.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 01:20 AM   #2490
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,747
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I was really hoping this thread had died.

You might have thought that Jabba, if he did return, would have a new argument, or at least an actual defence of the old one, rather than just the same nonsense that's been utterly destroyed dozens of times already. You might have thought that, if you hadn't been following this thread since its beginning and consequently known what a forlorn hope it was.
What better proof of immortality of proof of immortality you need?
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax 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 Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 02:36 AM   #2491
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I was really hoping this thread had died.

You might have thought that Jabba, if he did return, would have a new argument, or at least an actual defence of the old one, rather than just the same nonsense that's been utterly destroyed dozens of times already. You might have thought that, if you hadn't been following this thread since its beginning and consequently known what a forlorn hope it was.
Jabba was checking back at least every couple of days. He has his obsession, I have mine.
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 05:12 AM   #2492
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,209
Indeed. I thought I missed this thread. But what I really missed was an idealized version of the thread. About 3%-5% of the thread is actually interesting in that it has actual 'movement'. New things discussed. Progress apparently being made. The rest is just sheer repetitiveness.

Jabba coming back and just re-posting the same 'summary' that he posted thousands of posts back just shows his contempt for this board and all of us. He doesn't give a damn about what we post, other than if he can somehow quote mine part of it out for his nefarious purposes which we will not mention here.

No one is being fooled.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 05:13 AM   #2493
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,677
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
About 3%-5% of the thread is actually interesting in that it has actual 'movement'. New things discussed. Progress apparently being made.
...what, where?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 05:48 AM   #2494
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: 25,324
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
...what, where?
The page numbers.

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 Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:13 AM   #2495
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,095
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
1. Iím back!
2. Canít help myself.
3. Simple Bayesian formula: P(I|E)=P(E|I)*P(I)/P(E)
4. I: Iím immortal
5. E: I currently exist
6. If I allow for
6.1. a 1% prior probability for my immortality, and
6.2. an unimaginably small number for the prior probability of me currently existing, and
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
7.1. P(I|E)=1*.01/.00000000000Ö1=.9999999Ö9, and
7.2. I must be immortal.
8. Am I using the formula properly?

Jabba -

I cannot tell you how disappointed I am. When you departed here, I thought it would give you time to really learn about the underlying subjects of your ideas. I thought you could talk with Buddhists, Hindus and other spiritualists about their ideas of reincarnation. I hoped you would try a refresher course in logic. Maybe you would even audit an introductory statistics class.

There was so, so much you could have done to strengthen your argument - not for our sake, but for yours. With more knowledge you might have given yourself a firmer grasp on your feelings and unevidenced beliefs.

Instead, you return here with exactly the same garbage. Nothing is new, nothing is different, nothing is more nuanced. It may as well be page 1.

I want you to understand that I feel personally insulted by your behavior. In dumping all your old nonsense, you have shown me great disrespect. Carry on here, but understand that you are not "right" or "wrong," you're just rude.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:16 AM   #2496
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,677
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I cannot tell you how disappointed I am. When you departed here, I thought it would give you time to really learn about the underlying subjects of your ideas. I thought you could talk with Buddhists, Hindus and other spiritualists about their ideas of reincarnation. I hoped you would try a refresher course in logic. Maybe you would even audit an introductory statistics class.
Did you really?

You're adorable.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:26 AM   #2497
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: 25,324
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Instead, you return here with exactly the same garbage. Nothing is new, nothing is different, nothing is more nuanced. It may as well be page 1.
Actually, I've just been checking, and you're wrong; it couldn't be page 1, because Jabba didn't actually start posting his "proof" till page 6, at which point he started by outlining his Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in excruciating detail and then set out to persuade everyone to accept it was a valid piece of reasoning before posting the next part. I tried to find where he posted his actual invocation of Bayes' Theorem for the first time, but after I'd been a few pages further into the thread I decided to stop before the urge to drill my own eyeballs out became too strong to resist.

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 Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:30 AM   #2498
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,095
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Actually, I've just been checking, and you're wrong; it couldn't be page 1, because Jabba didn't actually start posting his "proof" till page 6, at which point he started by outlining his Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in excruciating detail and then set out to persuade everyone to accept it was a valid piece of reasoning before posting the next part. I tried to find where he posted his actual invocation of Bayes' Theorem for the first time, but after I'd been a few pages further into the thread I decided to stop before the urge to drill my own eyeballs out became too strong to resist.

You're right. I remember doing the same search some time back. In any case, even if he didn't state it on page 1, his half-baked ideas were already half-baked right from the start.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:37 AM   #2499
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: 25,324
Found it. Page 18. In effect it's the reciprocal of the current proof; he started out trying to prove that the probability of science being correct was zero, now he's trying to prove that the probability of science being incorrect is infinite[1]. Impressively, in five years, he's gone from a fallacious and utterly specious argument to a fallacious, utterly specious and mathematically incompetent argument.

I hid the power drill. I'll look for it on Sunday when I feel a bit better.

Dave

[1] Yes, that's right. Infinite. Scroll up and look.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:43 AM   #2500
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,114
Jabba! They have ears but hear not, neither do they see!

Time to give up, wouldn't you say?
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 01:33 PM   #2501
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
1. I’m back!
2. Can’t help myself.
3. Simple Bayesian formula: P(I|E)=P(E|I)*P(I)/P(E)
4. I: I’m immortal
5. E: I currently exist
6. If I allow for
6.1. a 1% prior probability for my immortality, and
6.2. an unimaginably small number for the prior probability of me currently existing, and
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
7.1. P(I|E)=1*.01/.00000000000…1=.9999999…9, and
7.2. I must be immortal.
8. Am I using the formula properly?
No. You're not using the formula properly. It is impossible for the denominator P(E) to be less than the numerator P(E|I)P(I). The fact that it is is proof that you're not doing anything Bayesian at all; you're just making up numbers. Now go away.

Last edited by jt512; 13th October 2017 at 01:35 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 Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 12:20 AM   #2502
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,747
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Asking the same question over and over, expecting the answer to be different is what, again?

Truly Effective DebateTM.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 05:21 AM   #2503
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,114
Drive-by Jabba?
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 07:54 AM   #2504
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,762
He's watching.
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 04:16 PM   #2505
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
No. You're not using the formula properly. It is impossible for the denominator P(E) to be less than the numerator P(E|I)P(I). The fact that it is is proof that you're not doing anything Bayesian at all; you're just making up numbers. Now go away.
I seriously don't know if I want to get involved in this discussion at all... but...

By what reasoning would anyone make the ridiculous assumption that P(E) is 'unimaginably small'? Does Jabba believe that he doesn't exist? Or does he have really incredibly serious doubt about whether he exists? Gotta say, this is some really strange abuse of poor Mr. Bayes...
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 04:20 PM   #2506
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,893
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I seriously don't know if I want to get involved in this discussion at all... but...

By what reasoning would anyone make the ridiculous assumption that P(E) is 'unimaginably small'? Does Jabba believe that he doesn't exist? Or does he have really incredibly serious doubt about whether he exists? Gotta say, this is some really strange abuse of poor Mr. Bayes...
Oh no you didn't!

Now it's gonna start all over again!eleventy!!!!
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 04:31 PM   #2507
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,507
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I seriously don't know if I want to get involved in this discussion at all... but...

By what reasoning would anyone make the ridiculous assumption that P(E) is 'unimaginably small'? Does Jabba believe that he doesn't exist? Or does he have really incredibly serious doubt about whether he exists? Gotta say, this is some really strange abuse of poor Mr. Bayes...
It is is unlikely that anything exists, which is not immortal. Jabba exists, therefore it is likely that Jabba is immortality. If we compute the likelihood of existence without immortality to infinitesimal, then we can compute the likelihood of immortality to be virtually certain, for anything that exists. The only other requirement for immortality being that the thing which exists must have a soul with a sense of self.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 04:37 PM   #2508
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It is is unlikely that anything exists, which is not immortal. Jabba exists, therefore it is likely that Jabba is immortality. If we compute the likelihood of existence without immortality to infinitesimal, then we can compute the likelihood of immortality to be virtually certain, for anything that exists. The only other requirement for immortality being that the thing which exists must have a soul with a sense of self.
Lol. That's entertaining.

Seriously though, this is kind of the opposite of the problem I usually run into. I end up seeing people really over-weighting the likelihood of an event, because they're looking at it after the fact. So the fact that it did happen ends up translating in their brains to it being highly likely to happen.

This though... this is taking a thing that is known and actual and then ascribing an infinitesimal likelihood to it's actuality? What is this, psychedelic statistics? Mathing while high? Reasoning under the influence?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 04:51 PM   #2509
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I seriously don't know if I want to get involved in this discussion at all... but...

By what reasoning would anyone make the ridiculous assumption that P(E) is 'unimaginably small'? Does Jabba believe that he doesn't exist? Or does he have really incredibly serious doubt about whether he exists? Gotta say, this is some really strange abuse of poor Mr. Bayes...

P(E) = P(E|H1)P(H1) + P(E|H2)P(H2) + . . . .

In other words, P(E) is a weighted average of the conditional probabilities of E given each possible hypothesis, with the weights given by the prior probabilities of those hypotheses. E is the observed evidence, so we know E occurred. The question is how likely was its occurrence under a set of competing hypotheses. If E is unlikely under all hypotheses, then P(E) can be small. It just means that E was unlikely to have occurred. However, it is clear from the above equation that P(E) ≥ P(E|H_i)P(H_i) for all i.

Last edited by jt512; 16th October 2017 at 04:56 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 Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:22 PM   #2510
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,507
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Lol. That's entertaining.

Seriously though, this is kind of the opposite of the problem I usually run into. I end up seeing people really over-weighting the likelihood of an event, because they're looking at it after the fact. So the fact that it did happen ends up translating in their brains to it being highly likely to happen.

This though... this is taking a thing that is known and actual and then ascribing an infinitesimal likelihood to it's actuality? What is this, psychedelic statistics? Mathing while high? Reasoning under the influence?
Your hilite stops short of the second, equally important clause in that sentence.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 07:49 AM   #2511
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,226
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
Of course it isn't, the TS fallacy has nothing to do with using your own existence in a conditional and there are no such things as "valid targets" or "invalid targets", just ignore all that.

The TS fallacy is the fallacy of switching the conditional.

Let A be "shot the side of the barn such that it counts as a hit"
Let B be "drew a difficult target on the side of the barn"

Then a sharpshooter can be considered as P(sharpshooter) = P(A|B), ie by the probability that you can score a hit given that a difficult target has been drawn. Someone using the TS fallacy would be arguing P(sharpshooter) = P(B|A), ie that they're a sharpshooter because they can draw a difficult target given a shot at the side of the barn that needs to count as a hit.

In your case, if you were making a TS fallacy you'd be arguing "the probability of me being immortal is P(E|I)" and you're making a lot of errors, but you're not making that particular one.

Your actual problem is this assertion: P(E|~H) > P(E|H)
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 Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 07:52 AM   #2512
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: 25,324
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Your actual problem is this assertion: P(E|~H) > P(E|H)
The assertion is actually more like P(E|~H)>>P(E|H). Jabba's not just arguing that his existence is more likely under ~H; he's arguing that it's so much more likely that its probability can be neglected under H.

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 Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 08:08 AM   #2513
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,226
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The assertion is actually more like P(E|~H)>>P(E|H). Jabba's not just arguing that his existence is more likely under ~H; he's arguing that it's so much more likely that its probability can be neglected under H.

Dave
True, but I decided against putting >> because it might give the impression that just > would be fine. And while it's true that Jabba is making that particular error in gigantic proportions, that still doesn't stop it from being an error even if it were made in more milder proportions.
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 Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 08:13 AM   #2514
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: 25,324
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
True, but I decided against putting >> because it might give the impression that just > would be fine. And while it's true that Jabba is making that particular error in gigantic proportions, that still doesn't stop it from being an error even if it were made in more milder proportions.
Fair point. It's a very good example of something I coined the term "unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe, quite a few years ago: the unsupported assertion that, though the value of a specific quantity is unknown, common sense dictates that it must be greater than the value of some other specific quantity, which in the strong form of the fallacy is also unknown. It's surprising how often it gets invoked.

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 Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:55 AM   #2515
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Your hilite stops short of the second, equally important clause in that sentence.
Meh. Seemed like the second clause was tautological, and didn't merit scrutiny.

Claim(s): It's unlikely that anything exists
[subclaim] unless that thing is immortal

Conclusion: I exist, therefore I am immortal

The immortality element of it seemed to be whatever the technical term is for assuming the conclusion to be true, then using that assumed conclusion as part of the argument for why the conclusion is true. There's a term, but I can't recall it.

Pretty much, you don't have to go beyond the assumption that the likelihood of anything existing is really small. That's not even a good assumption, it's obviously incorrect in a pretty dramatic fashion. Nothing beyond that false assumption bears consideration.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 18th October 2017 at 11:59 AM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:25 PM   #2516
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,503
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The immortality element of it seemed to be whatever the technical term is for assuming the conclusion to be true, then using that assumed conclusion as part of the argument for why the conclusion is true. There's a term, but I can't recall it.
Circulus in demonstrando, aka circular reasoning.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:30 PM   #2517
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Circulus in demonstrando, aka circular reasoning.
Hey! Yep, that'd be the one. The name is totally not at all descriptive.

You'd think I coulda dredged that up from the brain-locker, but apparently my hinges need oiling.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:34 PM   #2518
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,507
And now you understand the entirety of Jabba's argument.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 09:28 PM   #2519
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,893
oh dear gods, please let it stop!
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 12:18 AM   #2520
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,747
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Drive-by Jabba?

Drive-by reset.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 06:42 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.