lessdazed comments on Is Sunk Cost Fallacy a Fallacy? - Less Wrong

19 Post author: gwern 04 February 2012 04:33AM

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

Comments (80)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: lessdazed 11 February 2012 12:34:06AM -2 points [-]

Is the sunk cost fallacy a fallacy?

I ask myself about many statements: would this have the same meaning if the word "really" were inserted? As far as my imagination can project, any sentence that can have "really" inserted into it without changing the sentence's meaning is at least somewhat a wrong question, one based on an unnatural category or an argument by definition.

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? --> If a tree falls in the forest, does it really make a sound?

Is Terry Schiavo alive? --> Is Terry Schiavo really alive?

Is the sunk cost fallacy a fallacy? --> Is the sunk cost fallacy really a fallacy?

Comment author: DSimon 15 February 2012 07:40:04PM 3 points [-]

As far as I can tell you can do that with any sentence.

Comment author: gwern 15 February 2012 08:01:53PM 4 points [-]

Can you really do that with any sentence?

Comment author: Jiro 11 November 2013 09:23:33PM *  -1 points [-]

"Really" in this context means that an answer has already been provided by someone but you object to the rationale given for this provided answer, particularly because it's too shallow. In other words, it's not a description of the problem the question asks you to solve, it's a description of the context in which the problem is to be solved. So the fact that it can be done with any sentence doesn't mean that it provides no information, just like "Like I was discussing with Joe last week, is the sunk cost fallacy a fallacy?" doesn't provide no information.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 February 2012 08:37:40PM 2 points [-]

Did you really mean “that can have” rather than “that can't have”?

Comment author: thomblake 15 February 2012 08:13:22PM 0 points [-]

Do you really ask yourself that about many statements?

Would this really have the same meaning if the word "really" were inserted?

Is any sentence that can have "really" inserted into it without changing the sentence's meaning really at least somewhat a wrong question, one based on an unnatural category or an argument by definition?