= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lmm comments on What do you mean by Pascal's mugging? - 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 (24)
I use the term for any case where people try to multiply a high utility by a low probability and get a substantial number. I think this is an error in general, and it's useful to have a term for it, rather than reserving the term for a specific technical scenario which is no longer especially interesting.
Whether or not you get a substantial number when you multiply a high utility by a low probability is a question of mathematics with a definite answer depending on the particular values in question, and sometimes you do get such a number, so it is not an error in general.
It's no longer especially interesting? What discovery or argument made no longer interesting?
I feel it's been argued out here. The notion was interesting when I first heard about it, but it's been a long time since I saw any new insight on the topic.
Why do you think that the term Pascal mugging is good for that purpose? I haven't seen a case where calling something that way advanced the discussion.
Do you feel the same way about other named fallacies, e.g. "ad homien" or "slippery slope"?
No. Those names are a lot better. "ad hominen" is a descriptive phrase even when it happens to be in latin. Slippery slope is even very plain English.
Both terms also have the advantage of being widely understood and not be local jargon.