Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 05:06 PM

Its a false trichotomy. There are more options other than 100% positive, 0% positive, and a non-specific general positivity. What about 1% positive? 2%? There are 101 values possible for the percentage chance of surviving the disease, and the logical person would have to say that there is a 1% chance of survival. He could say nothing else logically.

By the way, I never said, and I surely did not "insist" that 2 was more logical than 3. I stated that 3 was a dodge that ignored the actual probability of surviving.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

daemon · 07-16-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Its a false trichotomy. There are more options other than 100% positive, 0% positive, and a non-specific general positivity.

Strawman. I never stated these were the only choices; they were the only choices I presented.

Quote:

What about 1% positive? 2%? There are 101 values possible for the percentage chance of surviving the disease...

Try infinite. Percentages aren't limited to integers.

Quote:

...and the logical person would have to say that there is a 1% chance of survival. He could say nothing else logically.

Yet this is still a more hopeful statement than saying they have a 0% chance of survival. Ergo, hope is not inherently illogical.

DRFseven · 07-16-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

luv: What I am saying is that there are other determinants than logic. People in dire straights believe because it makes their lives easier:

People believe something because something seems true to them. Period. That is the ONLY way people come to believe. Likewise, if they don't believe, it is because something does NOT seem true. Go ahead and try it out; try to believe in fairies or Santa Claus, and try to NOT believe in cars or God, just for a short while. You can't do it; you are not the boss of your bullshit detector; your entire circumstances are.

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 05:15 PM

It would not be hope at all. How would hope be involved in stating that my chances of survival are exactly what the laws of nature demand. Why, in that situation, would you need hope? You are simply expecting the statistically predicted outcome. An appeal to hope is not involved.

The most you can say is that atheism offers much less hope than Christianity. So the basis of our argument was, why would anyone want to abandon Christianity for a proposition that may be untrue when all they get in return is (at best) much less hope for the future?

Odemus · 07-16-2002, 05:16 PM

Icarus, can you provide a brief synoptic testimony of your deconversion?

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 05:18 PM

That's not true DRF. People do believe things that have stronger evidence not to believe if believing benefits them. Lots of white racists, for example, believe they are better than everyone who is not white even if they have an abundance of evidence to the contrary because they benefit psychologically for believing it. Even if they don't really believe it, but actively fully repress their unbelief for their own benefit, that makes little difference at the end of the day.

Where is the B.S. detector located?

Viti · 07-16-2002, 05:19 PM

Okay in the disease situation where only 1% of people survive

The probability I will survive is low
There is a possibility of survival however slight
I hope I survive

What is so difficult to understand luvluv

daemon · 07-16-2002, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
By the way, I never said, and I surely did not "insist" that 2 was more logical than 3.

Au contraire. From page 4:

Quote:

daemon:
Why is (2) more rational than (3)?
luvluv:
Because the odds are you won't survive the disease.

Given that I have asked you to rethink this statement and you have refused, insistence is an accurate description.

Quote:

I stated that 3 was a dodge that ignored the actual probability of surviving.

Semantic gobbledygook. I have established that hopeful statements can be true and hopeless ones false. Therefore, unless false statements can be more logical than true ones, it is not possible for hope to be intrinsically illogical.

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 05:23 PM

The hope is not based on a logical assesment of the probability of survival, but on the perceived benefits of survival to myself.

Precisely the reason why I said that those in deprived situations would be reluctant to give up hope and reluctant to adopt sheer logic.

You could hope to survive, but you wouldn't have much hope of surviving because you have nothing beyond raw probability to appeal to.

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 05:26 PM

daemon it wasn't a hopeful statement it was a simple restatement of the strictly determined odds of probability. What role does hope have in restating statistically established odds? Why would I need the virtue of hope? Logic would suffice to tell me that if 1% of people survive this disease, I have a 1% chance of survival. Where does hope enter into it?

In other words, probability is a physical law governing outcomes. If I throw something up, I don't hope it comes down. I expect it to come down. If there is a 1% chance of something happening to me, I don't hope there is a one percent chance. There is a one percent chances.

I have been working with hope as a verb, not a noun. Hope is something people do, not just something people have.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

07-16-2002, 05:06 PM	#101
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Its a false trichotomy. There are more options other than 100% positive, 0% positive, and a non-specific general positivity. What about 1% positive? 2%? There are 101 values possible for the percentage chance of surviving the disease, and the logical person would have to say that there is a 1% chance of survival. He could say nothing else logically. By the way, I never said, and I surely did not "insist" that 2 was more logical than 3. I stated that 3 was a dodge that ignored the actual probability of surviving. [ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

07-16-2002, 05:26 PM	#110
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	daemon it wasn't a hopeful statement it was a simple restatement of the strictly determined odds of probability. What role does hope have in restating statistically established odds? Why would I need the virtue of hope? Logic would suffice to tell me that if 1% of people survive this disease, I have a 1% chance of survival. Where does hope enter into it? In other words, probability is a physical law governing outcomes. If I throw something up, I don't hope it comes down. I expect it to come down. If there is a 1% chance of something happening to me, I don't hope there is a one percent chance. There is a one percent chances. I have been working with hope as a verb, not a noun. Hope is something people do, not just something people have. [ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2002, 05:15 PM	#104
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	It would not be hope at all. How would hope be involved in stating that my chances of survival are exactly what the laws of nature demand. Why, in that situation, would you need hope? You are simply expecting the statistically predicted outcome. An appeal to hope is not involved. The most you can say is that atheism offers much less hope than Christianity. So the basis of our argument was, why would anyone want to abandon Christianity for a proposition that may be untrue when all they get in return is (at best) much less hope for the future?

07-16-2002, 05:16 PM	#105
Odemus Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Easy Street Posts: 736	Icarus, can you provide a brief synoptic testimony of your deconversion?

07-16-2002, 05:18 PM	#106
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	That's not true DRF. People do believe things that have stronger evidence not to believe if believing benefits them. Lots of white racists, for example, believe they are better than everyone who is not white even if they have an abundance of evidence to the contrary because they benefit psychologically for believing it. Even if they don't really believe it, but actively fully repress their unbelief for their own benefit, that makes little difference at the end of the day. Where is the B.S. detector located?

07-16-2002, 05:19 PM	#107
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Okay in the disease situation where only 1% of people survive The probability I will survive is low There is a possibility of survival however slight I hope I survive What is so difficult to understand luvluv

07-16-2002, 05:23 PM	#109
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	The hope is not based on a logical assesment of the probability of survival, but on the perceived benefits of survival to myself. Precisely the reason why I said that those in deprived situations would be reluctant to give up hope and reluctant to adopt sheer logic. You could hope to survive, but you wouldn't have much hope of surviving because you have nothing beyond raw probability to appeal to.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.