I disagree with this. The game show host has revealed what is behind only ONE of the doors. You may have chosen one door for yourself, but it's contents have not yet been revealed.

If he opened door number 3, you can now disregard door 3. The original distribution of odds no longer apply.

ilovejonn

Canada2548 Posts

May 03 2010 07:15 GMT

#182

Ugh reminds me of Descartes and philosophy, which I just finished my finals for a few days ago.

XeliN

United Kingdom1755 Posts

May 03 2010 07:16 GMT

#183

I do philosophy media, although "do" is slightly strong. I'm lazy as fuck and hardly go to lectures//read around the subject (although I've started reading Thus Said Zarathustra, I intend it to be the first philosophy book I will have read this year, if you don't count the God Delusion which you shouldn't ^^)

Navi

5286 Posts

May 03 2010 07:17 GMT

#184

the guy on the far right of the first youtube preview looks like Clark Kent lol

so-so imo, I've had enough of people preaching me their philosophy for this year though

tinman

United States287 Posts

May 03 2010 07:18 GMT

#185

On May 03 2010 16:11 Lixler wrote:
I'm not demanding that anyone else's worldviews adhere to my logical system, only that my worldviews adhere to it. If anyone should want me to accept their worldview, then obviously they would have to demonstrate to me in some way that it is superior in some way to mine.

i wish that you had just said

Any faith-based worldview should be that in total if they want me to accept their worldview. If they want me to accept their worldview they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).

from the get-go. it would have saved me some time because i have absolutely no interest whatsoever in getting you to accept a worldview.

XeliN

United Kingdom1755 Posts

May 03 2010 07:20 GMT

#186

And you are right Lixlel, but tinman can still maintain or even argue more strongly that if belief with evidence at its roots rests and is inextricably linked to value judgements that are subjective then it is no better or worse than belief without evidence, or substitute "science" is no better than "faith" e.t.c

tinman

United States287 Posts

May 03 2010 07:22 GMT

#187

On May 03 2010 15:54 XeliN wrote:
Tinman I'll give you an answer in the interest of debate, one should not belief without evidence as it is detrimental to the progression of mankind, also belief without evidence can be seen as having great influence in the violence, oppression and intolerance that we observe in the world on an every day basis.

sorry XeliN i missed that you had said this.

but you could probably guess what i have to say. i don't know why being detrimental to the progress of mankind (whatever that means) is a bad thing. i also kind of enjoy violence, oppression, and intolerance so i am willing to contribute to their continued flowering by whatever means is closest at hand.

the more fundamental problem though is providing evidence for the belief that one should not do something that hinders "the progression of mankind."

XeliN

United Kingdom1755 Posts

May 03 2010 07:22 GMT

#188

The trouble I find is that if you journey too far down this path you inevitably stumble into nothingness..

tinman

United States287 Posts

May 03 2010 07:23 GMT

#189

so far i have been unable to gather evidence to the effect that stumbling into nothingness is an undesirable outcome.

tinman

United States287 Posts

May 03 2010 07:24 GMT

#190

i'll let you know, though, if i come across anything.

XeliN

United Kingdom1755 Posts

May 03 2010 07:26 GMT

#191

Well then tinman the argument would run that there is no inherent value that makes belief with evidence superior to belief without evidence, however, if certain assumptions and understandings are granted such as "The search for truth is a valuable aim" "Evidence is a neccesary part of discerning truth" "the progression of manking, and minimising of suffering is a worthwhile pursuit" e.t.c then belief with evidence is very clearly greater.

As the vast majority of manking would agree to holding these assumptions or similar notions then it is very easy to argue why belief with evidence is better.

And you seem to be trying to force people into the position of arguing objectively whilst maintaining for yourself the luxury of subjectivity.

tinman

United States287 Posts

May 03 2010 07:27 GMT

#192

i'm not the one who values objectivity.

XeliN

United Kingdom1755 Posts

May 03 2010 07:30 GMT

#193

Actually I'll edit, fine then if you do not value objectivity then why are you not willing to concede to an argument for the value of belief with evidence based on subjective values?

tinman

United States287 Posts

May 03 2010 07:33 GMT

#194

i do value you, though, XeliN. you hold a special place in my cold black heart.

XeliN

United Kingdom1755 Posts

May 03 2010 07:33 GMT

#195

lol is it right above the tumour

tinman

United States287 Posts

May 03 2010 07:34 GMT

#196

hahahahahaha... oh shit.

at any rate i am off to finish my paper. you know what they say about procrastination.

XeliN

United Kingdom1755 Posts

May 03 2010 07:35 GMT

#197

I used to but I stopped listening half way through....

Severedevil

United States4838 Posts

May 03 2010 07:39 GMT

#198

On May 03 2010 16:14 BruceLee6783 wrote:

Show nested quote +

There is a one-third chance that the prize is behind the door you picked (Door 1), and a 100% chance that one of Door 2 and Door 3 is empty.

You're suggesting that, if the host tells you which one of Door 2 and Door 3 is empty (or, if they're both empty, tells you one of them that's empty), the chance will somehow increase that Door 1 contains the prize. Nope. That could only be true if the chance that the prize is behind Door 1 depends on which of Door 2 and Door 3 the host opens.

jalstar

United States8198 Posts

May 03 2010 07:47 GMT

#199

Case 1: (1/3 chance)

You pick the car. The host eliminates one of the two remaining doors (doesn't matter since they both have goats). If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.

Case 2: (2/3 chance)

You pick a goat. The host eliminates the other goat, leaving the car in the door you can switch to. If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.

Note that this depends on the host knowing where the car is and never eliminating it on accident or on purpose. If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way (proof left to interested reader)

phyren

United States1067 Posts

May 03 2010 07:50 GMT

#200

On May 03 2010 16:14 BruceLee6783 wrote:
Show nested quote +
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect.

I disagree with this. The game show host has revealed what is behind only ONE of the doors. You may have chosen one door for yourself, but it's contents have not yet been revealed.

If he opened door number 3, you can now disregard door 3. The original distribution of odds no longer apply.

Severedevil pretty much addresses this, but I can see why it would seem strange. Honestly though, just try it. Take like 3 pieces of paper or some such and write prize on the back of one of them and do this with a friend. Switch is the correct choice twice as often as not.