LESSWRONG
LW

All of Shield's Comments + Replies

Pascal's Mugging: Tiny Probabilities of Vast Utilities
Shield-10

Not once in my life have I had these debates (no, not exaggerating) and I find it a strange assumption that I have. Don't spend an immense amount of time on these sort of forums ya' see.

If this sort of debate is truly so scripted could you point me to one? Since I'd gain an equal amount of information, apparently.

I do actually want to know what the apparently so common christian reply to these arguments is, it's sort of why I asked. I'm here to get information, not to be told that the information has already been given. This fact doesn't really help me.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
-2Lumifer
Find a smart Christian and talk to her. You could also think about what is evidence and what is ideas in your mind about what God (according to your convenient definition of him) must do or cannot do. There's a big difference. You might consider meme propagation and ruminate on why certain written down "random hypotheses" become religions and take over the world, while others don't. Oh, and speculations about the probabilities of things happening in universes with gods and universes without gods are neither facts nor arguments.
Pascal's Mugging: Tiny Probabilities of Vast Utilities
Shield-30

You're falling into the atheist-arguing-with-believers mode.

I've only made arguments I think are correct in response to points that you made. If I have offended you, that was certainly not the intent and you can point to where you think I was rude.

But this is a theological argument. If you did not want to start a theological argument, then why did you start a theological argument?

What is your point?

The original issue was whether you have discovered a new failure mode in Pascal's Wager (besides a few well-known ones). My view on that remains unchanged.

... (read more)
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0Lumifer
I am not offended at all. The meaning of the sentence was that the argument started to follow well-worn railroad tracks. I find your arguments unconvincing. I also don't have the inclination to get into a discussion of the Indifferent God approach which, again, is trampled ground.
0ialdabaoth
It's not about offending people, and I doubt that Lumifer is actually offended. It's just that there are certain scripted / cached modes of debate that we try to avoid on this site, because they don't actually aid in the pursuit of rationality. TLDR: Lumifer is trying to help you become stronger. You stand to learn an important skill if you pay careful attention.
Pascal's Mugging: Tiny Probabilities of Vast Utilities
Shield-10

I am not quite sure how do you reconcile the former and the latter parts of this sentence.

I am not quite sure why I would have issue. Above negligible in this case means any probability above that of a completely random unfalsifiable hypothesis with no evidence to support it.

So you think there's some credible evidence for god's existence but absolutely none, zero, zilch, nada evidence for the claim that god can give you eternal life and that believing in him increases your chances of receiving it?

No, and there's perfectly valid evidence to believe h... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
-1Eugine_Nier
Well, I'd expect more texts in a universe with a God. Where on earth are you getting this "equal probability"?
0Lumifer
You're falling into the atheist-arguing-with-believers mode. The original issue was whether you have discovered a new failure mode in Pascal's Wager (besides a few well-known ones). My view on that remains unchanged.
Pascal's Mugging: Tiny Probabilities of Vast Utilities
Shield10

There is certainly evidence to support the existence of god (God, a god, gods, etc.) Most people around here don't find it convincing but billions of people around the globe do.

We're not talking about the existence of god. You're forgetting the law of burdensome detail.

Pascals wager doesn't posit that God exists, it posits that God exists and he'll give us eternal joy if we believe in him.

The claim god exists has an above negligible probability, the claim god will give you eternal joy, but only if you believe in him has no absolutely no evidence to supp... (read more)

Reply
0hairyfigment
I would instead break it down into the claim that some Force could theoretically give us eternal bliss or suffering (A), and the further set of complicated claims involved in Pascal's brand of Christianity. Conditional on A: the further claim that religion would prevent us from using the Force in the way we'd prefer seems vastly more plausible to me, based on the evidence, than Pascal's alternative. And there are various other possibilities we'd have to consider. I don't believe the Wager style of argument works, for the reasons given or alluded to in the OP -- but if it worked I believe it would argue for atheism.
0Lumifer
I am not quite sure how do you reconcile the former and the latter parts of this sentence. So you think there's some credible evidence for god's existence but absolutely none, zero, zilch, nada evidence for the claim that god can give you eternal life and that believing in him increases your chances of receiving it? Of course he did. There is a large volume of sacred literature in most cultures which deals precisely with characteristics of gods. A large chunk of it claims to be revelatory and have divine origin.
Pascal's Mugging: Tiny Probabilities of Vast Utilities
Shield30

I have a very poor understanding of both probability and analytic philosophy so in the inevitable scenario where I'm completely wrong be kind.

But if you can conceive of a scenario where there's a probability that doing something will result in infinite gain, but you can also picture an equally probable scenario where doing NOTHING will result in equal gain, then don't they cancel each other out?

If there's a probability that believing in god will give you infinite gain, isn't there an equal probability that not believing in god will result in infinite gai... (read more)

Reply
1Lumifer
Pascal's Wager isn't about what your mind can possibly conceive, it's a bet about the way reality works. No. The whole point of Pascal's Wager is asymmetry. It posits that there are two possible states of the world: in one you can have eternal life, in the other you can not.
-1V_V
You aren't.
Tell Your Rationalist Origin Story
Shield00

I don't consider myself a rationalist, I feel that would indicate a confidence I don't have. I'm certainly trying, which is by far the most important step I think.

I suppose it was the first time I heard to proper definition of evidence, in that anything that is true only ever makes anything else more likely to be true if the latter has a higher chance of being true if the former also is (dumbed down but that's how I heard it). Id always been a bit skeptical of - effectively stated - all the bullshit but that's what really got me thinking about religion and... (read more)

Reply
The Halo Effect
Shield70

It's only when reading about these sort of experimental results when the full atrocious stupidity of an education system that doesn't educate people about logical fallacies begins to hit me.

They have this much of an impact on people in such critical situations where absolute neutrality is completely vital and yet no one seems to consider making it in any way mandatory to teach children how to THINK.

Reply
Feeling Rational
Shield60

What is it with you and shoelaces?

Reply
The Anti-Placebo Effect
Shield110

Are you sure that "anti placebo effect" is a good name though? The placebo effect refers exclusively to medical treatment if I'm not entirely mistaken, and this seems to have much broader implications in basically any sort of training. It's still basically the same effect if someone refuses to notice the progress they made with say tutoring, but it has nothing to do with medicine or treatment.

Seems a bit misleading.

Reply
0Lethalmud
Maybe Nocebo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo
0ShannonFriedman
Here's my answer to that: http://lesswrong.com/lw/iqr/the_antiplacebo_effect/9tiw
2Desrtopa
I can affirm that I expected the term to refer to something different, namely an effect that causes people to do worse based on their concerns surrounding an intervention, such as in this study on intercessory prayer, where the individuals who knew they were being prayed for did worse than the other groups, possibly because they were concerned that they were so badly off that they needed people to pray for them.
0Zaine
In the placebo effect, you try something, see results, and believe those results derived from what you tried, when in fact what you tried could not possibly have had any effect whatsoever; the observed results are then attributed to one's beliefs that the tried thing had the capacity for effecting change. The above refers to a different phenomenon: one tries something, doesn't see results, and believes what they tried had no effect, when in fact what they tried did have results. In the placebo effect, one's beliefs effect change. In the phenomenon Shannon refers to, change occurs regardless of one's beliefs. Interestingly, when I presented the above description of the placebo effect to someone and asked for what they would expect of the opposite, they replied, "Change happens and they don't believe it." I would think the term, "Opposite-Placebo Effect" or "Opposite of the Placebo Effect" a better descriptor, as 'anti-' implies simple negation rather than a flipping of observed effects. This could of course just be an issue of differing perspectives on what is or isn't an intuitive moniker.
8timtyler
It may be that nocebo has a better claim to being an "anti-placebo effect".
4Vaniver
While the placebo effect is generally defined in a medical context, people rarely throw type errors when you talk about placebos outside of medicine. The Hawthorne Effect is the name that productivity boosts due to observation / novelty / active treatment go by, but it's seen as similar to if not the same as the placebo effect.