Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

Fudbucker said:
I don't see how it's strange at all. What I think prior probability means and what someone else thinks it might mean can be two different things, obviously. It's better to ask the person what they mean, rather than assume.
Click to expand...

You failed to recognize or perhaps rather ignore the importance of prior probabilities since they, as is evidenced by your reasoning, clash with your point of view.
 
In stead of respecting and incorporating the prior probabilities present, you simply try to define them away.
This is strange if you then attempt to go on a Bayesian rampage.

Very silly, really.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Actually, Fud, what you said was:


You can look it up: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10388686#post10388686

That is not "logically unclear", but, simply, wrong. Now, if you want to move the goalposts, and say that what you meant is different from what you said, you are, of course free so to do. You have the option of making all the alibis you can stomach.

However, Fud, that does not change the fact the the probability of finding an ace of spades in a deck "...if there is no ace of spades in the deck..." is not "almost zero" but, in fact, zero. If "...there is no ace of spades in the deck..." then there is no ace of spades in the deck.
Click to expand...

You still don't have logical impossibility. In order to get at logical impossibility you would have to claim that it takes you zero amount of time to examine a deck of cards OR that no ace can appear in a deck that has no aces while you're examining it. Consider the scenario:

At time T1 you hold in your hand a deck with no ace of spades. It is stipulated that the deck in your hand has no aces (i.e., "there is no ace of spades in the deck you were handed"). It is not stipulated that the deck will always be free of aces.
At time T2, you begin searching the deck.
At time T3, an ace appears in the deck
At time T4, you discover the ace.

This fits the parameters of the scenario.

ETA: Is it possible to get tails with a two-headed coin? Yes, because the coin could change when you flip it. In order for it to be impossible, a stipulation must be made that the coin can't change.

This is a needless derail. You won't change my mind, and I probably won't change yours. My scenario could certainly have been clearer, so I take the responsibility for that.
 
Last edited:
Imposibilities.
Physical impossibilities.
Logical impossibilities.

Anything to define away prior probability.
 
Daylightstar said:
In stead of respecting and incorporating the prior probabilities present, you simply try to define them away.
This is strange if you then attempt to go on a Bayesian rampage.

Very silly, really.
Click to expand...

Exactly what am I defining away and how am I doing so?
 
Fudbucker said:
Exactly what am I defining away and how am I doing so?
Click to expand...

The prior probability for life (elsewhere) in the universe.
By trying to define the chances for life elsewhere increasingly small, approaching 0 or effectively defining it as 0.

Your opinion in fact depends on that.
 
All of that has already been explained to you, by the way.
But it clashes with your opinion, so you reject it.

Like you reject the actual Null Hypothesis and redefine it into something diametrically opposed to it into something more to your liking.
 
Last edited:
How was that referred to again on these forums? .... Rredefinition I think.

It's a common tactic for people with irrational ideas.
 
Daylightstar said:
Fudbucker, you are more concerned with what you believe than with what you could learn.
Click to expand...

Can you make an argument instead of pithy statements?

Do you believe a Bayesian analysis is possible for the claim "alien life exists"? If so, let's see the analysis.
 
Fudbucker said:
You still don't have logical impossibility. In order to get at logical impossibility you would have to claim that it takes you zero amount of time to examine a deck of cards OR that no ace can appear in a deck that has no aces while you're examining it. Consider the scenario:

At time T1 you hold in your hand a deck with no ace of spades. It is stipulated that the deck in your hand has no aces (i.e., "there is no ace of spades in the deck you were handed"). It is not stipulated that the deck will always be free of aces.
At time T2, you begin searching the deck.
At time T3, an ace appears in the deck
At time T4, you discover the ace.

This fits the parameters of the scenario.
Click to expand...

Fud, had you, in fact, said, "...at the time you were handed the deck of cards, there was no ace of spades in the deck...", your quibble-based alibi would hold water, if not up to close scrutiny.

However, Fud, as you are aware, what you said was "...there is no ace of spades in the deck..." (feel free to look it up),

Fud, the condition "...there was no ace of spades in the deck when it was handed to you..." is, in fact, a different hypothetical. In that case, the prob ability of finding an ace of spades is, in fact, not zero (albeit only infinitesimally greater than zero).

Fud, what you are trying to handwave away is that there is a fundamentl difference between "...there is no ace of spades in the deck...", and "...there was no ace of spades in the deck...". Fud, I did not, in fact, fail to comprehend your hypothetical as written, nor did I misapply statistics; rather, you miscrafted your scenario, failing to leave room for your "gotcha". Tsk, tsk. Worse, Fud, when called on it, you tried to alibi your way out of it, instead of simply admitting your error. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

And I am not, in fact, her august majesty Winnifred I, queen of Koozbain. That probability is not "almost zero", but zero.
 
Fudbucker said:
Can you make an argument instead of pithy statements?
...
Click to expand...

I already did, a couple posts up.
I'd call it an observation supported by your posts.

Fudbucker said:
...
Do you believe a Bayesian analysis is possible for the claim "alien life exists"? If so, let's see the analysis.
Click to expand...

We have prior probability, as has been explained to you.
Your distinction between "life in the universe" and "alien life" or "alien advanced life" is invalid as well, as I have pointed out to you early in this thread, with added elaboration by others.

The answer to your thread question is no and your adapted statement for the probabilities for each item in your op question to be equal, is evidently invalid.
That's the only analysis your thread question and your adapted statement require.
 
Fudbucker said:
You still don't have logical impossibility. In order to get at logical impossibility you would have to claim that it takes you zero amount of time to examine a deck of cards OR that no ace can appear in a deck that has no aces while you're examining it. Consider the scenario:

At time T1 you hold in your hand a deck with no ace of spades. It is stipulated that the deck in your hand has no aces (i.e., "there is no ace of spades in the deck you were handed"). It is not stipulated that the deck will always be free of aces.
At time T2, you begin searching the deck.
At time T3, an ace appears in the deck
At time T4, you discover the ace.

This fits the parameters of the scenario.

ETA: Is it possible to get tails with a two-headed coin? Yes, because the coin could change when you flip it. In order for it to be impossible, a stipulation must be made that the coin can't change.
Click to expand...

Nope. If the "two headed coin" is changed (by miracle, magic, or legedermain) into a coin that can land on heads, then it is not a "two-headed coin". The probability of a "two-headed coin" coming up tails is, in fact, zero.

Fud, if the coin comes up tails, then it is not, in fact, a "two-headed coin".

But please, by all means, continue to craft alibis.

Fudbucker said:
This is a needless derail. You won't change my mind, and I probably won't change yours. My scenario could certainly have been clearer, so I take the responsibility for that.
Click to expand...

No. Fud, your scenario did not need to be "clearer"; it needed to be accurately crafted and accurately reported. The problem is not that I did not understand what you wrote; quite the opposite. The problem is that you needed to change what you wrote, but wanted to make it seem as if the error were not yours.

Fud, in a deck where "...there is no ace of spades in the deck...," the probability of finding an ace of spades in the deck is not "almost zero", but zero.

Grammar and lexicon are our only tools against the darkness.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Slow, is it possible for a two-headed coin to land tails?
Click to expand...

Fud, if the coin is, in fact, "two-headed", it cannot, in fact, land on tails. If the coin, in fact, lands on tails, it is not, in fact, "two-headed".

Fud, is it possible that I am her most serene and august imperial majesty, queen Winnifred I of Koozbain?
 
Last edited:
Here's where the Bayesian Analysis of alien life falls apart:

Pr(H/E) = Pr (E/H) x Pr(H) / Pr(E)

Let H = "alien life exists". Our evidence (E) is "life on Earth exists".

Pr (E/H) is unknown. Given that life on Earth exists, what is the probability that "alien life exists"? The fact that life on Earth exists doesn't do anything to the hypothesis. It doesn't confirm it or disconfirm it.

Also, Pr(E) is either very close to 1 or is some unknown number. Pr(E) is asking, what is the probability of the evidence (life on Earth exists). Well, we know life on Earth exists, so it's as certain as anything else we observe. If Pr(E) is a very high value, very little confirmation will result.

But Pr(E) could also be asking, counterfactually, "What is the probability that life should exist on Earth". This can't be answered because we don't know all the necessary conditions that are required for life, nor the chances of abiogenesis occurring.

So then there's two reasons why a probability calculus for alien life fails: The evidence of life on Earth doesn't confirm the hypothesis to any degree, and the probability of the evidence is either so high that no confirmation occurs, or, if we look at it counterfactually, the probability of the evidence can't be determined.

Before we get into the ESP part, does anyone disagree with the above? Does anyone think we can calculate, to any degree, the probability of the existence of alien life?
 
Fudbucker said:
...
Pr (E/H) is unknown. Given that life on Earth exists, what is the probability that "alien life exists"? The fact that life on Earth exists doesn't do anything to the hypothesis. It doesn't confirm it or disconfirm it.
...
Click to expand...

This is where you define away prior probability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom