dgsinclair

EY: I don't multiply tiny probabilities by huge impacts. I also don't get tiny probabilities by putting myself into inescapable reference classes, for this is the sort of reasoning that would screw over planets that actually were in trouble if everyone thought like that.

But isn't the latter exactly what you are doing with Pascal's wager? Underestimating the existence of God's probability so that you may retreat back to 'tiny probability'?

Luke, while I agree with the premise, I think that the bogie man of machines taking over may be either inevitable or impossible, depending on where you put your assumptions.

In many ways, machines have BEEN smarter and stronger than humans already. Machine AI may make individual or groups of machines formidable, but until they can reason, replicate, and trust or deceive, I'm not sure they have much of a chance.

The lack of responses and negative scores on my comment show me that (1) it is easier to vote down a post than post a reasoned response, and (2) it is easier to scoff at opponents and think them fools than confront one's own self-deceptive behaviors, the very purpose of Luke's post.

No doubt evolution is a simplified rules set, but in empirical tests, as well as in historical interpretation of data, it has many failings which, as Luke has pointed out for certain creationists, is something that evolutionary believers shy away from, hiding in self-deception in order to keep their beliefs safe.

But this is not a post about creation/evolution - my point was that his use of creationists was a poor choice because (a) creationism is believed by a majority of Americans, and so will turn them off from his main point, and (b) the idea that the idea is settled scientifically is dubious, since origins science is more interpretation than demonstrable fact, and both sides of that debate have strong ideological reasons to believe and scientific reasons to doubt that they ignore.

One more thing. If you want a wider audience to access the point you are making (remember how many people are creationists here in the US), you should use a more accessible and universally accepted example, like the Japanese soldier one you used. If you want a contemporary example, choose something there is more agreement on or people with miss your point - it's like calling your opponent a Nazi - you already lost the argument even if you are right.

I suppose if you are only addressing the skeptical audience, you could use such an example, the way I could use the example of atheists who ignore the obviousness of God's existence as witnessed in creation if I were talking to Christians. But if I am trying to also reach atheists, perhaps I would use a different example.