= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bo102010 comments on Logical Rudeness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (203)
Apologies if this is injecting too much mind-killing, but I really started taking notice of this type argument-gymnastics last year about the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
"This program is great! It will get money to the struggling auto-makers."
"Wouldn't it be more efficient to just give them money like we did before? And what if it just goes to the strong auto-makers?"
"Well, maybe. But think about the environmental benefit of all those old cars off the road!"
"Wouldn't it be more efficient to just spend the money on the environment directly? And isn't manufacturing a bunch of new cars bad for the environment?"
"Well yeah, but it will get money to the struggling auto-makers!"
I don't know anything about the Clunkers program, but this doesn't sound completely irrational to me. If X does both A and B at 60% efficiency and Y will do either A or B at 100% efficiency, which is better? (These numbers are just examples.)
This behavior seems different than the example from the OP which seems to be more like:
X is true because of A!
A is impossible
X is true because of B!
B is impossible
X is true because of A!
*facepalm*
Fair point. This is more like "Program X does A, but really inefficiently." "True, but it also does B!" "OK, but it also does B really inefficiently." "True, but it also does A!"
See also Religion's rules of inference.
I'm not saying anything about the actual program or results, but that form of argument might be valid in this case. In a 'kill two birds with one stone' kind of way.
Looking at the efficiency of any one thing may not be the best strategy if you care about lots of things.
Sure, but (again in ignorance of the actual program) there should be at least one point on which you're prepared to defend its efficacy.
Yeah, exactly. The problem with the outline above is that in step 2 they acknowledge that the program doesn't do A well. But then in step 4 they act like they never conceded that.
Really, we should be trying to look at the total effects of any given expenditure. (including where we get the money from in the first place, if that's variable)
But to simplify:
If spending $100 in a certain way benefits 10 parties as much as giving them $20 would, each could argue that it would be more efficient (by a factor of 5!!) to just give them the $100. But if you care roughly equally for all the parties, it would really be only half as good.
The only such defence worthy of our attention is one where the speaker is prepared to explicitly state a guess at the dollar value of each advantage and show that the sum is greater than the cost spent.
Or where the sum advantage is obvious compared to the next best alternative, without formally computing expected value.
Agreed