Freethought & Rationalism Archive

K · 03-15-2003, 11:15 AM

In the William James precursive faith thread, it is being argued that it is rational to hold irrational beliefs as long as those beliefs meet certain criteria. I thought I'd try my hand at a guide to betting using the same logic. Here goes.

There are some bets where the odds of winning can not be shown to be zero. This will show when it is smart to make a bet in such a situation. This will follow along the lines of James' precursive faith with the following (somewhat loose) substitutions.

momentous -> enticing
forced -> offered
live -> live
rational -> smart
belief / believe -> bet
evidence -> odds

We will define a bet as enticing, offered, and live if an idividual finds the payoff attractive, the bet is available to be made (eg. cash to cover losing the bet), and the individual is feeling lucky (ie. it feels like the bet is winnable). In such a situation, the only options are to avoid betting and lose the enticing payoff for certain or to risk betting to make an attempt at winning.

There are two schools of thought here.

"I don't want to risk losing what I have."

and

"I don't want to miss out if there is a possibility of winning."

There is nothing to say that one philosophy is better than the other, they are just two different philosophies.

So now, we can use this to determine when it is smart to make a bet. If a person finds a bet enticing, offered, and live (they don't want to miss out if there is a possibility of winning), it is smart for them to take the bet. In fact, it would be dumb of them not to take the bet.

OBJECTION: This formula doesn't include the odds of winning. The bet that is offered could be, "I'll give you a million dollars if you can guess the 10 numbers I'm thinking of - otherwise you give me your house." This is clearly not a smart bet.

DEFENSE: Whoa. This isn't about determining which bets are smart bets. It only tells when it is smart to bet. It says nothing about the underlying smartness of the bet itself.

OBJECTION: That would mean that it could be a smart to bet on a dumb bet!

DEFENSE: Yes, it is - as long as the bettor finds the bet to be enticing, offered, and live it is smart to bet on the dumb bet. Remeber, this is about when it is smart to bet. It says nothing about the underlying bet.

This type of reasoning also works well when determining when it's wise to buy an internet stock. A stock should be:

Attractive (if the value goes up really high, it will pay off big)
Attainable (I have enough funds to cover the purchase price)
Headed Up (I believe the stock price will increase)

Also when debating whether it's safe to have unprotected sex with someone just met at a bar. The person should be:

Sexy (I find the person attractive enough to want to have sex with them)
Attainable (The person finds me attractive enough to have sex with me)
Nice (I believe that the person would inform me if they had an STD)

Jobar · 03-15-2003, 12:42 PM

LOL! K, this really belongs in Humor- but it is extremely highbrow humor, and is so relevant to luvluv's thread, that I will leave it here, at least until he responds. No one who hadn't read at least some of that thread would find it in the least humorous- and that would be a pity, 'cause it's a good joke!

Family Man · 03-15-2003, 01:42 PM

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

luvluv · 03-16-2003, 12:01 AM

Have you ever read the actual essay? Informed humor is the best kind.

You guys have a bad habit of believing you have understood an author's point because you've read a post on it.

If you applied James' formula to the bet analogy, the stock analogy, and the sex analogy, they would all fail.

Family Man · 03-16-2003, 07:42 AM

How?

K · 03-16-2003, 08:12 AM

luvluv:

Yes, I have read the essay. It's true that I was exploiting weaknesses in your own characterization of James' points (he never actually explicitly says that a person can rationally hold a rational belief), but I don't recall anything from the essay that would differentiate his precursive belief from the guide to betting.

So, instead of claiming, "if you applied James' formula to the bet analogy, the stock analogy, and the sex analogy, they would all fail," why don't you just point to the parts in the original essay that differentiate it from these analogies.

Secular Pinoy · 03-17-2003, 07:49 PM

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Reductio ad Absurdum at its funniest.

03-15-2003, 11:15 AM	#1
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	A William-James-esque guide to betting and more In the William James precursive faith thread, it is being argued that it is rational to hold irrational beliefs as long as those beliefs meet certain criteria. I thought I'd try my hand at a guide to betting using the same logic. Here goes. There are some bets where the odds of winning can not be shown to be zero. This will show when it is smart to make a bet in such a situation. This will follow along the lines of James' precursive faith with the following (somewhat loose) substitutions. momentous -> enticing forced -> offered live -> live rational -> smart belief / believe -> bet evidence -> odds We will define a bet as enticing, offered, and live if an idividual finds the payoff attractive, the bet is available to be made (eg. cash to cover losing the bet), and the individual is feeling lucky (ie. it feels like the bet is winnable). In such a situation, the only options are to avoid betting and lose the enticing payoff for certain or to risk betting to make an attempt at winning. There are two schools of thought here. "I don't want to risk losing what I have." and "I don't want to miss out if there is a possibility of winning." There is nothing to say that one philosophy is better than the other, they are just two different philosophies. So now, we can use this to determine when it is smart to make a bet. If a person finds a bet enticing, offered, and live (they don't want to miss out if there is a possibility of winning), it is smart for them to take the bet. In fact, it would be dumb of them not to take the bet. OBJECTION: This formula doesn't include the odds of winning. The bet that is offered could be, "I'll give you a million dollars if you can guess the 10 numbers I'm thinking of - otherwise you give me your house." This is clearly not a smart bet. DEFENSE: Whoa. This isn't about determining which bets are smart bets. It only tells when it is smart to bet. It says nothing about the underlying smartness of the bet itself. OBJECTION: That would mean that it could be a smart to bet on a dumb bet! DEFENSE: Yes, it is - as long as the bettor finds the bet to be enticing, offered, and live it is smart to bet on the dumb bet. Remeber, this is about when it is smart to bet. It says nothing about the underlying bet. This type of reasoning also works well when determining when it's wise to buy an internet stock. A stock should be: Attractive (if the value goes up really high, it will pay off big) Attainable (I have enough funds to cover the purchase price) Headed Up (I believe the stock price will increase) Also when debating whether it's safe to have unprotected sex with someone just met at a bar. The person should be: Sexy (I find the person attractive enough to want to have sex with them) Attainable (The person finds me attractive enough to have sex with me) Nice (I believe that the person would inform me if they had an STD)

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

03-15-2003, 12:42 PM	#2
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	LOL! K, this really belongs in Humor- but it is extremely highbrow humor, and is so relevant to luvluv's thread, that I will leave it here, at least until he responds. No one who hadn't read at least some of that thread would find it in the least humorous- and that would be a pity, 'cause it's a good joke!

03-15-2003, 01:42 PM	#3
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

03-16-2003, 12:01 AM	#4
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Have you ever read the actual essay? Informed humor is the best kind. You guys have a bad habit of believing you have understood an author's point because you've read a post on it. If you applied James' formula to the bet analogy, the stock analogy, and the sex analogy, they would all fail.

03-16-2003, 07:42 AM	#5
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	How?

03-16-2003, 08:12 AM	#6
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	luvluv: Yes, I have read the essay. It's true that I was exploiting weaknesses in your own characterization of James' points (he never actually explicitly says that a person can rationally hold a rational belief), but I don't recall anything from the essay that would differentiate his precursive belief from the guide to betting. So, instead of claiming, "if you applied James' formula to the bet analogy, the stock analogy, and the sex analogy, they would all fail," why don't you just point to the parts in the original essay that differentiate it from these analogies.

03-17-2003, 07:49 PM	#7
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy Reductio ad Absurdum at its funniest.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.