"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b0f5e60$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
> > news:4b0eab58$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >>> Hey, studying things is a valid way to determine whether there's any
> > truth
> >>> to them - provided you do the studying correctly and don't just try to
> >>> dream up data that supports the conclusion you want to reach. ;-)
> >
> >> Also if the potential benefits are high enough then even things with a
> > tiny
> >> chance of being successful should be studied.
> >
> > That's a fallacy, at least without quantifying that "tiny" (and it's
next to
> > impossible to quantify tiny in most such contexts since the "hypothesis"
is
> > irrational/non-scientific anyway). There's a tiny chance that my house
is
> > built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of
dollars,
> > which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?

> Is the probability that there is a diamond mine beneath your house
> greater than the ratio of the cost the mine would cost to the probable
> return? Lets say there is a one in a million chance there is a diamond
> pipe there worth several billions, and a mine would only cost a few
> thousand dollars. Suddenly, the objection fades away.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating. Unless *you* start digging under your
house, my objection stands.

Plus there are two additional issues. One is the law of diminishing returns
(or the utility function, whatever economists like to call it). Second, and
more important, is that we have limited resources (especially time/life
span). A one in  googolplex probability of something, even if the potential
return is googolplex ^ googolplex dollars and the cost is one dollar, is not
worth attempting, and for all intents and purposes, that probability is
zero.

Post a reply to this message