The Campaign Builder's Guild

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 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][th]Setup 2 [/th]

Live, but pain	Live no pain
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][th]Setup 2 [/th]

Die	Live no pain
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][th]Setup 2 [/th]

Live but pain	Live no pain
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][th]Setup 2 [/th]

Die	Live no pain
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.