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.

Or lets say the diamond pipe is even rarer, 1 in a billion chance, but
the total cost of a mine is only 1 dollar. Would you do it then?

> Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all practical
> purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0. Any single
> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for an
> intelligent human to bother  to do such research is employement and
> publishing.

Academic research often searches for things that there is little chance
of creating directly, because the reward for finding it could be very
valuable. Now we know that these phenomena are bunk, but to get to that
knowledge we had to study it. If someone comes up with something that
just 'feels like it is psychic' but has a physical explaination that may
or may not be reality, then discounting it just because your gut says it
is wrong is just as useless as trusting that it works without any proof.

Proof, by the way, is not deploying a stick with a crystal on the end
into the middle a war zone.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/26/09 20:20, somebody wrote:
>> 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

	I fail to see how the hypothesis is irrational and non-scientific. At 
least not any more than communicating via radio would have been to some 
scientist 500 years ago.

> built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of dollars,
> which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?

	You've set up a strawman.

> Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all practical
> purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0. Any single

	Would that have been obvious to you 150 years ago?

	You're suggesting that some decades ago, when numerous people continued 
to make claims, at times with witnesses, that it wasn't worthy of 
investigation?

> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for an
> intelligent human to bother  to do such research is employement and
> publishing.

	It seems you're merely redefining "intelligent" to be someone who 
doesn't "fall for x", where x is to your choosing.

-- 
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person 
who doesn't get it.

Post a reply to this message

"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

On 11/26/2009 11:54 AM, TC wrote:
> ROTFL! I had completely forgotten about this one!
>
> But there is a difference between CMOT's dragon detector and this gadget
> (for want of a better word): The dragon detector, while being completely
> useless, will actually to the job. And it is much more reasonably priced.

So, the bomb detector is effective if you look up and find you don't 
have hands?

--
Michael Horvath
mik### [at] gmailcom
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b0f6445$1@news.povray.org...
> On 11/26/09 20:20, somebody wrote:

> >> 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

> I fail to see how the hypothesis is irrational and non-scientific. At
> least not any more than communicating via radio would have been to some
> scientist 500 years ago.

Just because one (*) thing that was beyond reason 500 years ago turned out
to be true, anything that is beyond reason today has nonzero probability of
being true one day. Right.

(*) OK, I am sure you can list hundereds of such projections. But that would
still be a finite set. On the other hand, nonsensical projections is
practically an unbounded (infinite) set. As a result "they laughed at
Newton, they laughed at Einstein..." doesn't work. There are millions of
"Bozo the Clowns" for each Newton or Einstein.

> > built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of
dollars,
> > which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?

> You've set up a strawman.

How so?

> > Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all
practical
> > purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0. Any single

> Would that have been obvious to you 150 years ago?

I was not alive 150 years ago. And even if I were, it wouldn't be relevant
to what we are talking about today or a couple of decades ago. In fact, I
might have been extremely stupid and gullible just last year, but that
itself doesn't detract what I am saying right now, or excuse others,
especially those in positions of power and influence, to act gullibly or
stupidly.

> You're suggesting that some decades ago, when numerous people continued
> to make claims, at times with witnesses, that it wasn't worthy of
> investigation?

No. I don't even think that the number of people making claims has declined
appreciably, or at all. It might have even increased. Number of outlandish
claims in general, definitely has increased dramatically - just check your
junk mail folder. Numbers mean absolutely nothing in this context,
especially if certain motives are easily visible behind those numbers.

> > cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for
an
> > intelligent human to bother  to do such research is employement and
> > publishing.

> It seems you're merely redefining "intelligent" to be someone who
> doesn't "fall for x", where x is to your choosing.

Could be. Or maybe you are jumping to conclusions.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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?

Cost/benefit analysis.

Also, diamonds don't turn up my chance. They turn up according to 
well-understood rules.

> Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all practical
> purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0.

There was a time when all of humanity honestly believed the world was 
flat, and anybody who claimed it wasn't was *obviously* a lunatic.

It was once considered "obvious" that if a person's heart stops beating, 
they're dead. The idea that you could make the heart start beating again 
and bring them back to life was absurd. (And probably qualifies you as a 
practitioner of necromancy, by the way.)

Scientists once thought it "obvious" that all life on Earth derives its 
energy from the Sun. There was a probability somewhere between 0 and 0 
of finding life in places where the Sun's energy cannot reach... And 
then they found the volcanic vents at the bottom of the sea, swarming 
with life feeding off of highly toxic chemicals, and the scientists had 
to go away and rethink their entire idea of ecosystems.

It was once "obvious" that entire continents cannot move around. How 
silly! What could possibly move an entire continent? Oh, and then they 
discovered plate tectonics.

If you want to stick to what is "obvious", you're not going to get very far.

> Any single
> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted,

False.

Disproving a theory is every bit as important as proving a theory. By 
proving that the psychic phenominon does not exist, now nobody else 
needs to study it. This is beneficial.

> and the only reasons for an
> intelligent human to bother  to do such research is employement and
> publishing.

Well, I'm sure there are cynical people who do research into absurd 
things just to make a living (e.g., the guy who proved that a duck's 
quack does in fact echo, or that guy who's still trying to prove that 
the MMR vaccine somehow causes autism), but most people are just trying 
to be thorough.

Any claim, no matter how stupid it sounds, could turn out to have some 
kind of truth to it. Ideas about psychic phenomina have existed for 
millennia; it's not unreasonable to suspect some truth to it.

(There are people who think that accupuncture is nonesense. But now 
scientists are finding that it causes measurable chemical changes in the 
body that do, in fact, do something. As crazy as that sounds...)

The *best way* to determine whether something is crazy or not is not to 
stand there and say "that's crazy", but to actually go out and do actual 
research and *prove* the answer one way or the other. THIS IS HOW 
SCIENCE WORKS!

Post a reply to this message

"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> > It reminds me of Terry Pratchett's "dragon detector" that CMOT Dibbler was
> > selling in "Guards! Guards!" - a piece of wood about as long as your hand.
> >
> > You knew it had detected the dragon when it had burned completely through.
> >
> > Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.
>
> But there is a difference between CMOT's dragon detector and this gadget
> (for want of a better word): The dragon detector, while being completely
> useless, will actually to the job.

Although there is always the possibility of false positives if the user gets too
close to fires, ovens, lightning etc.

:)

Post a reply to this message

>> But there is a difference between CMOT's dragon detector and this gadget
>> (for want of a better word): The dragon detector, while being completely
>> useless, will actually to the job.
> 
> Although there is always the possibility of false positives if the user gets too
> close to fires, ovens, lightning etc.
> 
> :)

A lot of my clothes have labels which contain helpful instructions like 
"keep away from fire". That's good advice to anyone, but I'm not sure 
why it's written on the label of my jumper... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

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

My apartment complex managers would be very upset if I did that.

Besides, the chance that there is a diamond pipe here is very slim, call
it one in a billion. Since a mine would cost me more than a million, and
the return would be less than 10^15 dollars, there is no reason for me
to do so. Should the price of diamonds sky rocket, that might change.

> 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.
> 
> 

To you, maybe that is the case. To me, if I have a 1 in a googolplex
chance of getting g^g returned, I would be spending at least 100 bucks.
Minutely small chances still have a non-zero chance of occuring. Lets
say that, over some time, 100 googolplex people played this chance game
once each. Chances are that 100 people would have gotten that massive
return.

Now, I can't get WolframAlpha to solve the birthday paradox for that
large of a number, but the formula should be
((10^(10^100))!)/(((10^(10^100))^n)(((10^(10^100))-n)!))
or prettier
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((10^(10^100))!)/(((10^(10^100))^n)(((10^(10^100))-n)!))%3D0.50

Now, if what you really mean is that there is a one in a googolplex
chance that the chance of winning is non-zero, that would be a different
story.

Post a reply to this message

"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b0fc0f4@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> To you, maybe that is the case. To me, if I have a 1 in a googolplex
> chance of getting g^g returned, I would be spending at least 100 bucks.
> Minutely small chances still have a non-zero chance of occuring. Lets
> say that, over some time, 100 googolplex people played this chance game
> once each. Chances are that 100 people would have gotten that massive
> return.

Ah but I am not 100 googolplex people. Nor can I play the game 100
googolplex times. Neither, for that matter, can whole of humanity even if we
dedicate every second to the job, even if jackpot is infinite. This is where
naive application of calculating returns fails: We don't have unlimited
time/tries for games with vanishingly small probabilities to make playable,
no matter what the payout. See St Petersburg paradox.

Post a reply to this message