dclayh comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong

236 Post author: Yvain 30 May 2010 09:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (343)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ocr-fork 31 May 2010 06:01:55AM 2 points [-]

If this institution is totally honest, and extremely accurate in making predictions, so that obeying the laws it enforces is like one-boxing in Newcomb's problem, and somehow an institution with this predictive power has no better option than imprisonment, then yes I would be OK with it.

Please see the edit I just added to the post; it seems like my wording wasn't precise enough. I had in mind statistical treatment of large groups, not prediction of behavior on an individual basis (which I assume is the point of your analogy with Newcomb's problem).

I would also be ok with this... however by your own definition it would never happen in practice, except for extreme cases like cults or a rage virus that only infects redheads.

Comment author: babblefrog 31 May 2010 04:23:52PM 1 point [-]

How much of a statistical correlation would you require? Anything over 50%? 90%? 99%? I'd still have a problem with this. "It is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." - Ben Franklin

Comment author: dclayh 31 May 2010 09:12:04PM 1 point [-]

An article by SteveLandsburg on a similar quote.

And a historical overview of related quotes.