X-Message-Number: 8265 Subject: Mr. Ettinger Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 17:34:46 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <> > From: > > Perry Metzger (# 8251) shows his limited understanding of the foundations of > probability theory. Yawn. > I won't say much here, but note that Metzger says of certain assertions that > they are "true or false" and there exists no statistical background on which > to base probability assessments. He is wrong. Ahem. Probability is, pure and simple, the measurement of the number of fraction of repeated experiments that turn out in a particular way. It is a measurement. There are two main ways to assess probability -- one is to conduct repeated measurements, and one is to use combinatorics to enumerate all equiprobable outcomes. When the weather service says "probability of rain 30%", they are saying that over hundreds of previous days on which observed weather conditions were measured to be nearly identical to the ones today, in 30% of the cases rain developed. It is meaningless to speak of the probability of a unique event. The notion "the odds of that idea you've just expressed being right are low because it was a joke so we can dismiss it" was an abuse of probability theory, a variant on the Ad Hominem fallacy (i.e. you are judging a proposition based on the conditions under which it was uttered), and yet again an abuse of the question of falsfiability. > As one obvious example, consider coin tossing. The probability of > getting heads on the next toss is (usually, approximately) 1/2; no > one disagrees. But now consider a coin already tossed but not yet > examined. According to Metzger's reasoning, this is beyond the > purview of probability; No, it isn't, actually. I leave it to the reader to figure out why. > If someone says an invisible bunny is following him around, is there any way > to judge the probability that the assertion is true? Its an undetectable bunny, actually, not an invisible one, and there is no way of determining the probability, no. You can't conduct any repeated trials, or even one trial. Its non-falsifiable. You can never know the truth or falsehood of ANY trials, let alone enough to get a statistically sound sample. > P.S. Metzger also does me the kindness of psychiatric evaluation without > charge, saying my skepticism about feeling in robots is based on "religion" > or on a need to feel superior. How this conclusion can be reached from > reading anything I have said is itself a psychiatric problem. Okay, Mr. Ettinger, you asked for it. I used to have some respect for the entity named "Robert Ettinger". This was based on his having made an interesting an important conclusion about the feasability of cryonics. However, as with the man who learned too much about the manufacture of sausage ever to eat it again, I've learned much about Robert Ettinger. He's frequently irrational, very emotional when discussing things especially when they are involved in the question of his own place in the universe, resorts frequently to cheap tricks in debate including all sorts of ad hominem fallacies, rarely conceeds even when presented with counterexamples from the real world, is insulting and abusive, and rarely if ever is capable of saying "I was wrong". In short, Mr. Ettinger, you've managed to use up your quota of extra respect that you got for helping to launch the cryonics movement. Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8265