More on rational deference

[chezlaw]

I still don't know if DS is claiming:

'It is rational to believe the most expert/intelligent are more likely to be right about B than those less expert/intelligent'
therefore
'it is rational to believe B'.

but it occurs to me that some of the views I disagree with may be caused by people acting as if this is true.

Take the claim that Russell was wrong in the logical argument against 'first cause'. It seems that people are willing to argue that he was wrong when its clear they don't understand logic well enough to see any flaw in his argument. How can this be?

Is it because those they believe most expert, believe Russell was wrong?

chez

[David Sklansky]

You make things so complicated.

An example of what I am saying is this. A group of reknowned physicists put out a press release that if it is the bottom of the ninth, the score is tied, the bases are loaded and there are no outs, it is CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER to go with two outfielders and one extra infielder.

Although major league managers never do this, they should now realize that they have all very likely been making a mistake regardless of their instinct or far greater experience in the matter.

Now you can tell me what that means I am saying.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You make things so complicated.

An example of what I am saying is this. A group of reknowned physicists put out a press release that if it is the bottom of the ninth, the score is tied, the bases are loaded and there are no outs, it is CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER to go with two outfielders and one extra infielder.

Although major league managers never do this, they should now realize that they have all very likely been making a mistake regardless of their instinct or far greater experience in the matter.

Now you can tell me what that means I am saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange, I thought I was trying to make things simple.

No idea what the rest is about.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
You make things so complicated.

An example of what I am saying is this. A group of reknowned physicists put out a press release that if it is the bottom of the ninth, the score is tied, the bases are loaded and there are no outs, it is CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER to go with two outfielders and one extra infielder.

Although major league managers never do this, they should now realize that they have all very likely been making a mistake regardless of their instinct or far greater experience in the matter.

Now you can tell me what that means I am saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where does the extra infiedler go? I don't think a 'shortstop' between 1st and 2nd is naturally best.

[BradyC]

[ QUOTE ]
You make things so complicated.

An example of what I am saying is this. A group of reknowned physicists put out a press release that if it is the bottom of the ninth, the score is tied, the bases are loaded and there are no outs, it is CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER to go with two outfielders and one extra infielder.

Although major league managers never do this, they should now realize that they have all very likely been making a mistake regardless of their instinct or far greater experience in the matter.

Now you can tell me what that means I am saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not understand, why would a physicist/intelligent person/genius etc. be the most qualified to give advice on spiritual matters?

[DougShrapnel]

Chez I think you have shown why David's theory is a little off. He'd have made a better point if he had said something along the lines of "If a expert disagree's with you, shouldn't you be a little more skeptical about your position. Shouldn't you investigate a little further. Shouldn't you realize that hey maybe I could be wrong.
Here I am believing in something that is not likey to be correct, perhaps I should not be so certain."

When it comes down to it, besides being possible, religion only has one thing going for it. And that's that other people you know and care about believe in it as well.

Lack of a belief has history on it's side, it has science on it's side, it has odds' on it's side, it has the intelligent on it's side, it has reason on it's side. Everything is on the side of lack of belief except people we know and care about. If I were the only athiest, I wouldn't change my belief at all. However if I was the only xtain, I would certainly dismiss my religion like all the previous religions have been dismissed before mine.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez I think you have shown why David's theory is a little off. He'd have made a better point if he had said something along the lines of "If a expert disagree's with you, shouldn't you be a little more skeptical about your position. Shouldn't you investigate a little further. Shouldn't you realize that hey maybe I could be wrong.
Here I am believing in something that is not likey to be correct, perhaps I should not be so certain."

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.]

I still think that's what he means but am unsure. I honestly don't understand why he thinks trying to clear this up is complicating things.

chez

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

An example of what I am saying is this. A group of reknowned physicists put out a press release that if it is the bottom of the ninth, the score is tied, the bases are loaded and there are no outs, it is CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER to go with two outfielders and one extra infielder.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you meant to hint at this, but one of the chapters of Moneyball speaks of a situation analogous to this. Twenty some years ago, Bill James did studies to determine what tactics lead to scoring runs, and "moving runners over" wasn't one of them. About 10 years ago AVM studies in baseball showed statistically that sacrafice bunting is almost always a hindrance towards scoring runs. Even though most Managers have seen this, most Managers still use the sacrafice bunt today. The reason for this is that "baseball people" came up with the idea of sacrafice bunting, and they aren't willing to just let it go. Similarly, one of the responses on this thread says they wouldn't trust a genius/physicist because they aren't a spiritual person. The truth is most people just do not want to believe mathematics and statistics can be right, while old knowledge in their field can be wrong.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez I think you have shown why David's theory is a little off. He'd have made a better point if he had said something along the lines of "If a expert disagree's with you, shouldn't you be a little more skeptical about your position. Shouldn't you investigate a little further. Shouldn't you realize that hey maybe I could be wrong.
Here I am believing in something that is not likey to be correct, perhaps I should not be so certain."

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.]

I still think that's what he means but am unsure. I honestly don't understand why he thinks trying to clear this up is complicating things.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If I were to guess on the complication. I think David is really trying to engage the religious on this board and point out just how illogical he thinks they are. David's purpose is to teach reason to the believers on this board, and it makes it harder for him to prove his point, when he has to contend with us as well as them. Considering that we normally don't just use the bible as reference and proof. That is to say, that you weren't complicating the issue, you were just complicating his strategy against the religous minded.

It's unfortunate that he is taking a break, because he finaly got some people to admit that the belief in God isn't based on logic, and had them asking if the belief rational. But I still think that without espousing a particular philosophic, or scientific code of action as well, even the most well thought out strategy of attack will fall on deaf ears.

I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation. But what he actually means, as part of his strategy, may be something completely different.

But hey I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

[RJT]

Chez,

[ QUOTE ]
The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.

[/ QUOTE ]

If David is right about nothing else he is virtually right if not 100% right about this, chez “You make things so complicated.”

I didn’t see your small #1 (or apostrophe) after the other R at first. I had to read it a few times, then I saw it(was my fault) . Use of another symbol or another letter would have made things “less complicated”. I guess you might have to come up with another syllogism that I can help you edit - just for practice with editing for the reader's sake.

Best regards,

RJT

[DougShrapnel]

I read R' as R prime. Which was a better fit for this deabte than ~R, which I read as not R.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

[ QUOTE ]
The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.

[/ QUOTE ]

If David is right about nothing else he is virtually right if not 100% right about this, chez “You make things so complicated.”

I didn’t see your small #1 (or apostrophe) after the other R at first. I had to read it a few times, then I saw it(was my fault) . Use of another symbol or another letter would have made things “less complicated”. I guess you might have to come up with another syllogism that I can help you edit - just for practice with editing for the reader's sake.

Best regards,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I suppose it was too much to hope for something Einsteinian about making things as simple as possible but no simpler.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez I think you have shown why David's theory is a little off. He'd have made a better point if he had said something along the lines of "If a expert disagree's with you, shouldn't you be a little more skeptical about your position. Shouldn't you investigate a little further. Shouldn't you realize that hey maybe I could be wrong.
Here I am believing in something that is not likey to be correct, perhaps I should not be so certain."

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.]

I still think that's what he means but am unsure. I honestly don't understand why he thinks trying to clear this up is complicating things.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If I were to guess on the complication. I think David is really trying to engage the religious on this board and point out just how illogical he thinks they are. David's purpose is to teach reason to the believers on this board, and it makes it harder for him to prove his point, when he has to contend with us as well as them. Considering that we normally don't just use the bible as reference and proof. That is to say, that you weren't complicating the issue, you were just complicating his strategy against the religous minded.

It's unfortunate that he is taking a break, because he finaly got some people to admit that the belief in God isn't based on logic, and had them asking if the belief rational. But I still think that without espousing a particular philosophic, or scientific code of action as well, even the most well thought out strategy of attack will fall on deaf ears.

I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation. But what he actually means, as part of his strategy, may be something completely different.

But hey I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could well be right but I think he would be mistaken. Sometimes I'm just being pedantic but here I think DS was being understood to say something that seemed (with justification) irrational to the very people he is trying to persuade to be more rational.

I doubt he was being irrational so he was probably being misunderstood. That's assuming I haven't got it all wrong which is a distinct possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's what I say and I think its what DS says (all of us with slightly different meanings of 'belief'. Essentially your belief in R should be weakened in some way.

The issue I wanted to clarify is if DS is going way beyond this and saying we should believe R'. I suppose we will never know.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I read R' as R prime. Which was a better fit for this deabte than ~R, which I read as not R.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I left my formal math a long while ago. Even if I was familiar with the r prime and other (I can’t type it) at one time, I have forgotten it. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Like I said, it was my error. But I look forward to more posts from chez as I do for the forum in general.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez I think you have shown why David's theory is a little off. He'd have made a better point if he had said something along the lines of "If a expert disagree's with you, shouldn't you be a little more skeptical about your position. Shouldn't you investigate a little further. Shouldn't you realize that hey maybe I could be wrong.
Here I am believing in something that is not likey to be correct, perhaps I should not be so certain."

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.]

I still think that's what he means but am unsure. I honestly don't understand why he thinks trying to clear this up is complicating things.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If I were to guess on the complication. I think David is really trying to engage the religious on this board and point out just how illogical he thinks they are. David's purpose is to teach reason to the believers on this board, and it makes it harder for him to prove his point, when he has to contend with us as well as them. Considering that we normally don't just use the bible as reference and proof. That is to say, that you weren't complicating the issue, you were just complicating his strategy against the religous minded.

It's unfortunate that he is taking a break, because he finaly got some people to admit that the belief in God isn't based on logic, and had them asking if the belief rational. But I still think that without espousing a particular philosophic, or scientific code of action as well, even the most well thought out strategy of attack will fall on deaf ears.

I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation. But what he actually means, as part of his strategy, may be something completely different.

But hey I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could well be right but I think he would be mistaken. Sometimes I'm just being pedantic but here I think DS was being understood to say something that seemed (with justification) irrational to the very people he is trying to persuade to be more rational.

I doubt he was being irrational so he was probably being misunderstood. That's assuming I haven't got it all wrong which is a distinct possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's what I say and I think its what DS says (all of us with slightly different meanings of 'belief'. Essentially your belief in R should be weakened in some way.

The issue I wanted to clarify is if DS is going way beyond this and saying we should believe R'. I suppose we will never know.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Essentially your belief in R should be weakened in some way.
I think that makes the most sense as a logical arguement, I am, however, not sure if that is what David actually meant.

Pretty sure the amount of weakening is in line with the ammount of experts claiming r'.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
A group of reknowned physicists put out a press release that if it is the bottom of the ninth, the score is tied, the bases are loaded and there are no outs, it is CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER to go with two outfielders and one extra infielder.
<font color="white"> .</font>

Although major league managers never do this, they should now realize that they have all very likely been making a mistake regardless of their instinct or far greater experience in the matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was assumed that anyone posting here who has not taken in Principia Mathematicae has at least gone through Moneyball (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393057658/qid=1128002563/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/104-8811565-4361555?v=glance&amp;s=books).