So, I found this rather persuasive clip about Global Warming today, and I thought I'd share it with everyone here. If you watch it, and want to discuss it, feel free. But please don't diss it without watching it (Although I really don't expect something like that.
Click here (http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html) to watch the video.
Ah, the Pascal Theory of Probability. I used to use that as reasoning for why everyone should be Christian...
It's a decent argument (if you're not willing to acknowledge that other possibilities exist); it's always safer to stick with Column A, but that's unfortunately not the kind of logic that most people like to hear.
Edit: (Also called "Pascal's Wager"). (My above statement was relatively sarcastic, sorry if that wasn't apparent... I should add some points into my base Knowledge (Sarcasm) skill sometime...)
I agree with him in theory, but I see a bit of a flaw in his logic.
Just because you can only influence your column doesn't mean that you can't consider the row. Taking the view that climate change = bad and stability = good is somewhat selfish. Scientists know that the earth goes through cycles of climate, and that it's always changing. The fact that it seems to be changing now doesn't mean that we were the direct cause, or that what the climate is changing to won't be better for the human race than what we have now. The row, and especially the cause of the row, is very important.
Don't get me wrong. Are we hurting the environment? Yes. Should we cut back on our pollution? Of course. But if you're going to try and freeze the earth's natural climate shifts, then you're doomed to failure.
I really don't like getting into political debates and such, but he sugar coated column A.
He wanted the worst case scenario for each box.
Worst case for diving into global depression would be
Wars between nations (nukes being launched to take out invading enemies homelands)
Poor living spaces, disease runs ramapant
Massive deaths from war and disease
Nukes send the world into nuklear winter, crops die, famine spreads
Thus the column A first row should have
Global Depression
Catastrophes
Econ
Political
Soc
Env
Health
Column B second row should probably have Global Depression as well, but I don't think everyone in that world would care.
Bringing columna A to have worst results than Column B (which has a happy face - cost).
So Column B would be the correct answer
Again I am pointing out the flaw in the video I do not want to be dragged into a political debate.
I'll just point out something, because I don't think Ishmayl was clear enough.
There is a shadow from an alleyway. It is
(A) a supernatural horror, or
(B) a harmless hobo.
Do you shoot at it?
| | "Yes" | "No" |
| A | :) | Death |
| B | Murder | :) |
Clearly, it could be a horror or a hobo. After all, we can't
know for sure. So to get the best result, we should always shoot.
----
I agree that global warming is a problem, and that videos like that are a good thing. Crazy logic is not. :)
Quote from: RaelifinI'll just point out something, because I don't think Ishmayl was clear enough.
There is a shadow from an alleyway. It is (A) a supernatural horror, or (B) a harmless hobo.
Do you shoot at it?
| | "Yes" | "No" |
| A | :) | Death |
| B | Murder | :) |
Clearly, it could be a horror or a hobo. After all, we can't know for sure. So to get the best result, we should always shoot.
----
I agree that global warming is a problem, and that videos like that are a good thing. Crazy logic is not. :)
over simplification. You could, of course, choose column C which is 'run away.' If nothing chases you, then :). If something does, shoot and then :).
QuoteAh, the Pascal Theory of Probability. I used to use that as reasoning for why everyone should be Christian...
horrible[/i] argument, and by extension, all arguments based on it are also horrible arguments--regardless of the truth of the claim.
Quote from: brainfaceIf you're talking about Pascal's wager, it's a horrible argument, and by extension, all arguments based on it are also horrible arguments--regardless of the truth of the claim.
I'm going to disagree. I think that as it was presented, it's crap. However, when done correctly, it does an okay job supporting the underlying argument of "We may want to take action, just to be sure."
It's rational thinking. It's also not terribly persuasive, since your first idea (mine at least) is to consider other options than the two presented.
Besides, a logical faith in Christianity isn't founded in faith, and won't save you anyway.
QuoteYou could, of course, choose column C which is 'run away.' If nothing chases you, then . If something does, shoot and then .
Dude, Pascal's Wager doesn't allow reasonable third solutions. Pascal's Wager involves stacking the column you prefer with the only good results and the other column with all the really bad ones, and pretending everything else doesn't exist.
Well fine, if you define the argument like that, it has no redeeming value. :P
My point in my first post was simply that odds must be taken into serious consideration when deciding whether it'd be best to take action "just in case."
I corrected his table, the true answer would be B because column A has cost twice. Column B doesn't, thus taking no action would be the least risky solution solution.
Quote from: PoseidonI corrected his table, the true answer would be B because column A has cost twice. Column B doesn't, thus taking no action would be the least risky solution solution.
just because it's costing you something every time doesn't mean it's not the best path. For instance:
If I could choose box A or box B, knowing that box A has either a bee sting or a mild spider bite waiting for me and that box B has either no pain or a fatal scorpion, which would you choose? By your logic, you'd choose box B since it doesn't have a cost for both actions.
Global depression would pretty much destroy all government's athourity, as there would be massive amounts of riots, it would pretty much end up in a global free-for all, taking the government structure back to tribes and the like. I still believe based on the evidence given, the Column A would be the best choice.
And if you are fatally allergic to bees?
Your bee/scorpion is not the same. It has too many options for one, but I will set it up as a pascal wager. Setup 1 (bee,no pain), Setup 2 (spider, scorpion)
(Assuming no allergies and non-posionous spider)
| | [th] Box A[/th][th]Box B[/th]
[th]Setup 1 [/th]| Live, but pain | Live no pain |
[th]Setup 2 [/th]| Live, but pain | Die |
Choice is simple: Coulmn A as there is no chance of death.
(Assuming fatal allergy to bees and non-posionous spider)
| | [th] Box A[/th][th]Box B[/th]
[th]Setup 1 [/th]| Die | Live no pain |
[th]Setup 2 [/th]| Live, but pain | Die |
Choice is column B. Both have a chance of death, but column B has the chance of living with no pain. Less risky than living with pain. Though they are almost equal, the exercise is in which option has less risk.
(Assuming no allergies and posionous spider)
| | [th] Box A[/th][th]Box B[/th]
[th]Setup 1 [/th]| Live but pain | Live no pain |
[th]Setup 2 [/th]| Die | Die |
Same as above, I put die in A2 because it is suppose to be the worst case scenerio. So again Column B
(Assuming fatal allergy to bees and posionous spider)
| | [th] Box A[/th][th]Box B[/th]
[th]Setup 1 [/th]| Die | Live no pain |
[th]Setup 2 [/th]| Die | Die |
Column B again, since there is a chance I will not die.
Now if the boxes were switched I would have concluded three A's and one B instead of the opposite.
The exercise is in which case has the least amount of risk. In the video Column A has cost while Column B doesn't. Everything else is the same, so the choice must be column B. It just has the least amount of risk.
However, even with that, we still know which row is most likely, due to scientific proof. So, if science almost completely proved that global warming was caused mostly by us, that leaves us with the most likely outcome for column A to be live, but cost; meanwhile column B's most likely would be complete catastrophe. So, with that said, you would choose column A, not B because even it has the least repercussions. And by repercussions, I'm not talking about just the humans. For example, from the book Ishmael, the character begins thinking about what if humans are just the pathrunners for another intellegint species in the process of evolution that would be superiour to us. This means that we are not only gambling with our own species, but with every single species tha tlives on this world, or to come after us. So, if we choose column B, we could be dooming many, many, many species to extinction just because we didn't want to do the work and decided to leave the fate of the world to chance. That's just got "choose this and sooner or later we'll send uber-ninjas at you to assassinate you, and there is nothing you can do to stop them" . Except instead of ninjas its nature. which has better ninjas to kill us with.
See he says you can't choose either row. It will happen (science is correct) or it won't (science is wrong). One of these two events will happen. The choice is the column, should we act or shouldn't we.
(I am not giving my position on the real life subject. I am just considering the video. If you want to talk about real life, please tell me and I will leave.)
Wouldn't the worst case scenario from the video actually be the following?
[table= Real Worst Case Scenario]
[tr][td] [/td][th]Action is Taken to Stop Climate Change[/th][th]No Action is Taken to Stop Climate Change[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]There is No Climate Change[/th][td] $ cost; global depression; widespread poverty leads to rampant strip mining that does cause climate change[/td][td] Scientists discover that a stubbornly unchanging climate is the cause of all cancer [/td][/tr]
[tr][th]There is Climate Change[/th][td] $ cost; incorrect action is taken and climate changes anyway; global depression, famine, and war [/td][td] Global depression, famine, war; widespread appearance of "I told you so!" bumper stickers[/td][/tr]
[/table]
OH NOES NOT THE BUMPER STICKERS!!!!! COLUMN A COLUMN A. :P
Seriously, people would be putting those bumper stickers on their foreheads, after peak oil catches up with the fairy tale motorist economy.
Well, its about the time, looking at the record of ice ages, for the heating to start before the drop, but out carbon dioxide putouts are increasing the heat to twice as it should be. Saying that, if we cut back on emissions, we won't have as much of a porblem. And of course the climate will change on its own, its what the earth does and there is a clear history of it. However, if we screw up enough stuff, then there wont be much of a climate to change. Thusly (new word), we should take action. This will REDUCE and NOT STOP the change, i repeat again: REDUCE and NOT STOP, so we don't kill off species. Changing the climate so it never changes on us because we don't want to cope with change is just plain stupid, and I would hate to be soemone who tried that. Anywho, if my previous posts came off as i want the climate change to stop entirely, that is incorrect. What i meant is that we should take action, but the only thing that we will be ale to do is reduce the effect our emissions are having on the world. For example, (and this is true) if many people (not sure how many) replace all their house lights with flourescent lights it would be like taking 40,000 cars off the road every year. So, if we do what we can (and by can i mean not try and stop climate change in its tracks), then we'll be fine. Sorry if that was confusing, but if i edit my mini-rants i go on, then i will think i meant something than what i originally ment, so i try not to do that as often as i can.
Quote from: Uranium-238And by repercussions, I'm not talking about just the humans. For example, from the book Ishmael, the character begins thinking about what if humans are just the pathrunners for another intellegint species in the process of evolution that would be superiour to us. This means that we are not only gambling with our own species, but with every single species that lives on this world, or to come after us. So, if we choose column B, we could be dooming many, many, many species to extinction just because we didn't want to do the work and decided to leave the fate of the world to chance.
well if you're going to look into the future, wouldn't a future race that has evolved to master rapid and extreme climate shifts a good thing? How do you know that the species out of the global warming won't be better? By taking action against it, you're still gambling with every single species that lives on this world, or to come after us. No real change.
Quote from: Uranium-238Thusly (new word)
(already a word) ;)
Quote from: Uranium-238For example, (and this is true) if many people (not sure how many) replace all their house lights with flourescent lights it would be like taking 40,000 cars off the road every year.
yes, but that doesn't account for the toxic chemicals needed to be put into the lights, nor the increased cost of producing said lights.
Jump ahead to LCDs; better in almost every conceivable way.
Damni! Its a new word if i say it is! But anyways, your thing about a race that has evolved to master climate shifts, etc., etc. But, they would need an ancestor, and what if we wiped out their ancestor while we were not doing anything? What if they were destined to be extremely awesome multiverse rulers...but you see, after we gewt to the races evolved to awesomeness thing it kinda loses its focus as we could go off to conquering multiple universes before ascending to something not unlike the "Q" of Star Trek. Soooo...lets just stick with the earth for now. Although, to be fair, i did bring it up. so, *slaps self vigourously with new AP Biology book*
I was a bit surprised he also put a smilie in the column A / row True box. I mean, if $$$ leads to global depression (I doubt action on climate change will get us into global depression but let's put that aside for now) then it will also do so in case climate change is true. This would mean three out of four boxes are bad, one of which is very bad.
So following his boxwise reasoning, we have two options:
- A: We act. Moderately bad results whether climate change is true or false.
- B: We don't act. Good results if climate change is false, VERY bad results if climate change is true.
Obviously, there is no way to decide between the two without in some way applying probabilities to the "true" and "false" scenarios, but unfortunately we're unable to do so. So the argument doesn't lead to anything.
Now my personal opinion is that we should still pick column A, for two reasons:
- I do not believe acting on climate change will necessarily have very bad consequences for anyone (except oil companies perhaps, though probably not even them).
- I do believe climate change will happen.
Túrin
PS props to Ish for pointing out the fallacy in his argument with the Christian thing.
I agree with Turin. And, as he said, [blockquote Turin]I do not believe acting on climate change will necessarily have very bad consequences for anyone (except oil companies perhaps, though probably not even them).
[/blockquote] At this point, we need a new fuel source. You will always need a new fuel source if your current fuel is killing the planet you live on. so, at this point, we shouldn't even take in to consideration oil companies.