Ooooh, Nassim Taleb set up a rigged thought experiment, well that has convinced me!
Taleb couldn't convince me grass is green. I agree the rationalists are a little too credulous, but that's not so much rationalism per se as that the people espousing it round these parts tend to be very nice, well-meaning types who are somewhat idealistic and progressive and are all about the openness to experience, trust, being charitable, and giving the benefit of the doubt.
Now, as to the coin flipping: who is the guy doing the flipping? Is he trustworthy? If you want to tell me that Fat Tony is right, because Taleb is the guy doing the flipping and he's shady as fuck so this is a loaded coin, okay - but I don't think that's the conclusion you want me to draw about the trustworthiness and believability of Taleb.
You want me to trust Taleb, that he is right about Fat Tony. But if Taleb is right about Fat Tony, then Fat Tony is right that this is not a fair coin, and so Taleb is a liar, and so Taleb is untrustworthy, so why should I believe him about Fat Tony?
(1) The coin toss could be fair, and Fat Tony is wrong.
(2) The coin toss could be rigged, and Fat Tony is right.
Just from the details given, we don't know which option is correct. Now, in general and in real life, if someone is trying to get you to bet money or agree to something based on "if I flip this coin 99 times and it comes up heads 99 times, we'll bet does it come up heads the 100th time" - yeah, be suspicious.
In a thought experiment? Where the guy has the incentive to make it that Fat Tony is right, not Dr. John? Yes, that's rigged - but not about the 50/50 chance of the coin coming up heads, but about Fat Tony never, ever being wrong.
Now, as to the coin flipping: who is the guy doing the flipping? Is he trustworthy?
With 99 heads in a row it doesn't really matter. There is literally no one in the entire world that you should trust enough that you would still believe the coin is fair. 2^-99 is a ridiculously small number.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Ooooh, Nassim Taleb set up a rigged thought experiment, well that has convinced me!
Taleb couldn't convince me grass is green. I agree the rationalists are a little too credulous, but that's not so much rationalism per se as that the people espousing it round these parts tend to be very nice, well-meaning types who are somewhat idealistic and progressive and are all about the openness to experience, trust, being charitable, and giving the benefit of the doubt.
Now, as to the coin flipping: who is the guy doing the flipping? Is he trustworthy? If you want to tell me that Fat Tony is right, because Taleb is the guy doing the flipping and he's shady as fuck so this is a loaded coin, okay - but I don't think that's the conclusion you want me to draw about the trustworthiness and believability of Taleb.
You want me to trust Taleb, that he is right about Fat Tony. But if Taleb is right about Fat Tony, then Fat Tony is right that this is not a fair coin, and so Taleb is a liar, and so Taleb is untrustworthy, so why should I believe him about Fat Tony?
(1) The coin toss could be fair, and Fat Tony is wrong.
(2) The coin toss could be rigged, and Fat Tony is right.
Just from the details given, we don't know which option is correct. Now, in general and in real life, if someone is trying to get you to bet money or agree to something based on "if I flip this coin 99 times and it comes up heads 99 times, we'll bet does it come up heads the 100th time" - yeah, be suspicious.
In a thought experiment? Where the guy has the incentive to make it that Fat Tony is right, not Dr. John? Yes, that's rigged - but not about the 50/50 chance of the coin coming up heads, but about Fat Tony never, ever being wrong.
With 99 heads in a row it doesn't really matter. There is literally no one in the entire world that you should trust enough that you would still believe the coin is fair. 2^-99 is a ridiculously small number.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link