= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Is Sunk Cost Fallacy a Fallacy? - 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 (80)
And if it isn't, as I conclude (after an introduction discussing the difference between being valid in a simplified artificial model and the real world!), then it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether accusations of sunk cost fallacy - which are endemic and received wisdom - are themselves fallacious. Sheesh. I feel as if I were discussing someone's credibility and someone said 'but that's an ad hominem!'. Yes. Yes, it is.
(Notice your Wikipedia link is full of hypotheticals and description, and not real world evidence.)
People do not discuss sunk cost because it is a theorem in some mathematical model or a theoretical way possible agents might fail to maximize utility; they discuss it because they think it is real and serious. If I conclude that it isn't serious, then in what sense am I not trying to overturn a basic principle?
Finally, your criticism of the title or what overreaching you perceive in it aside, did you have any actual criticism like missing refs or anything?
Precisely. The wikipedia article set out to explain what the Sunk Cost Fallacy is and did it. It did not set out to answer any of the dozens of questions which would make sense as titles to your post (such as "Is the sunk cost fallacy a problem in humans?") and so real world 'evidence' wouldn't make much sense. Just like filling up the article on No True Scottsman with evidence about whether True Scottsman actually do like haggis would be rather missing the point! (The hypothetical is built right into the name for the informal fallacy!)
And with a slight tweak that is another thing that you could make your post about that wouldn't necessitate dismissing it out of hand. Please consider renaming along these lines.
Without implicitly accepting the connotations here by responding - No, your article seems to be quite thorough with making references. In particular all the dot points in the summary seem to be supported by at least one academic source.