Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies

[Donn]

Precisely, which is how I do it. For 1 dollar I can get several days worth of day dreams. For $30 I could get two hours of a mediocre movie and popcorn. Very few argue that the movie is a tax on the math-ignorant.


Besides everything that has been discussed in this many threads? And besides those like our participants here who are in it not for Bigfoot but for the manipulative thrill? I'll put on my armchair psychologist hat:

There are two main sets of people outside the liars and hoaxers. First are the true believers who have -- for various reasons -- never been exposed to actual evaluation of the purported evidence or never learned how to properly evaluate such. I'll set them aside.

The second set is the fun seeker. I didn't really believe in the Wendigo in Boy Scouts but when -- during my initial camp outing with my troop I was the target of the stories meant to make the night spooky and me enjoyably nervous, I played along. I don't believe in all the monsters and ghosties on Supernatural, but it is one of my favorite shows. Bigfootery for some is a willful suspension of disbelief in an attempt to become part of their own real life Supernatural. A very rough analogy may be drawn with the SCA in which no one really believes they are peasants or nobles or mercenaries or what have you; they are simply more open about the make believe aspect.

Okay. I get from this that there are few, if any, who take the chance that something might be so as a good enough reason to actually believe it. It's more like they use that excuse when arguing for what they already believe, which comes from other reasons like fun, culture, bias, many etceteras.

I'll keep that in mind, even as I seek an analogy that works for me to describe to someone why their small chance is feasibly impossible.

(I liked Dinwar's car in the garage, or not. However, it thins when you make the garage the size of the neighbourhood.)

I'm stubborn, in no small measure.

 

[jt512]

The only rational argument in favor of buying a lottery ticket is when the investment is negligible to you.

Precisely, which is how I do it. For 1 dollar I can get several days worth of day dreams.

I think you need to check the definition of "rational."

 

[Garrette]

I think you need to check the definition of "rational."

Granted that this may be a joke, I think my definition and application are fine. The cost was negligible, the return palpable.

 

[Resume]

The chances of winning are so low that there's not much point in planning.

The only rational argument in favor of buying a lottery ticket is when the investment is negligible to you.

I think you need to check the definition of "rational."

Granted that this may be a joke, I think my definition and application are fine. The cost was negligible, the return palpable.

I dunno, is fantasy rational? Role-playing? Back in the day there were $1 lap dances at the Admiral. Seemed worth a toss (so to speak) even though none of us (well, maybe Stick) thought the girls really liked us.

Anyway, threw a dollar away on the Mega-Millions last night. Didn't win though.

 

[Garrette]

I dunno, is fantasy rational? Role-playing? Back in the day there were $1 lap dances at the Admiral. Seemed worth a toss (so to speak) even though none of us (well, maybe Stick) thought the girls really liked us.

Anyway, threw a dollar away on the Mega-Millions last night. Didn't win though.

I revert to my original comparison, that of going to the movies. Does that classify as not rational, too? If so, I will grant that using imagination as entertainment is not rational, but if not, I will not.

 

[Resume]

I revert to my original comparison, that of going to the movies. Does that classify as not rational, too? If so, I will grant that using imagination as entertainment is not rational, but if not, I will not.

I'd say spending money on entertainment is rational as long as the expectations are rational.*

Or something like that.


*Perhaps I mean reasonable.

 

[Garrette]

I'd say spending money on entertainment is rational as long as the expectations are rational.*

Or something like that.


*Perhaps I mean reasonable.

I can agree with either word usage, and I think it supports my contention that negligible spending on the lottery for an expected return of entertainment in the form of daydreaming fits the bill.

 

[John Nowak]

I get that, but I don't feel it. Do you have any metaphor, or analogy, to give it punch?

Like poison, the danger is in the dose.

If I go out and say, "Instead of buying a donut, I will buy a lottery ticket" then the risk I'm taking is negligible. Heck, it's probably the healthier choice, assuming that I'm not actually starving.

The problem there is what "negligible" means. If I blow as much as ten bucks a week on lottery tickets, then I might have more fun with that money by going to have a nice steak dinner every other month, or supporting some websites on Patreon.

That dollar limit is entirely arbitrary and will be different for everyone. I know people who probably shouldn't squander a dollar a week.

If I say "Instead of paying my rent, I will buy lottery tickets" then I'm actually doing harm to myself, and I should probably get help. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

If I find that when I don't win, I get depressed and trouble getting over it, then it's again likely that I'm hurting myself and shouldn't do it. The buck-fifty is trivial, moping around for half an hour is not.

That granted, then the question becomes how to distinguish between those categories and make sure you don't fall into the latter.

It's harmless and fun to think about what you'll do if you win, but if you actually start budgeting your winnings, then there's a good chance you're just setting yourself up for disappointment, and it would be a good idea to stop buying tickets.

I don't think the lottery makes for a good analogy with Bigfoot at all. Nobody seriously doubts that lotteries exist and that they pay as advertised.

In my opinion, it is not worth looking for Bigfoot at all, because if Bigfoot were to suddenly start lurking in our forests, then one of the hundreds of thousands of serious wildlife photographers would be producing high quality photographs within a week. "Bigfoot researchers" add nothing to the game.

 

[John Nowak]

I dunno, is fantasy rational?

Entertainment is a thing. Some people get it from buying a lottery ticket, some people go to the movies, some people play Kerbal Space Program.

As long as they're meeting their other obligations, there's no harm.

 

[Donn]

Like poison, the danger is in the dose.

The more resources you spend on a small possibility, the more dangerous. Yes, not bad. I'll keep looking.

I don't think the lottery makes for a good analogy with Bigfoot at all. Nobody seriously doubts that lotteries exist and that they pay as advertised.

I never meant it as such, only worked with part of a post. However, the tiny chance of a lottery win, has a strong pull. That pull is the same, hypothetically, as the attraction to Bigfoot — the tiny chance that he exists swells.

Someone disposed to think bigfoot is real will take that non-zero chance as a vindication.

 

[John Nowak]

Someone disposed to think bigfoot is real will take that non-zero chance as a vindication.

Of course, the fallacy there is that someone trying to justify a bigfoot search needs to explain why they expect to succeed where everyone else has failed.

If you claim that you see Bigfoot in a national park with two million + visitors a year, then you need to explain why the others seem to have missed it.

 

[Donn]

Of course, the fallacy there is that someone trying to justify a bigfoot search needs to explain why they expect to succeed where everyone else has failed.

The gamers manage to rent expensive hotels and drive 4x4s for casual romps in the woods. The ones they fleece need better ways to see the tiny chance is really a closed door.

 

[John Nowak]

The gamers manage to rent expensive hotels and drive 4x4s for casual romps in the woods. The ones they fleece need better ways to see the tiny chance is really a closed door.

Or understand that even if the researchers are telling the truth, their efforts are redundant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I get that, but I don't feel it. Do you have any metaphor, or analogy, to give it punch?

I think an extension is more likely to work than an analogy or metaphor.

It's possible that you could win $500M on your next birthday, precisely at noon.
The likelihood is very, very , very, vanishingly small.

Now... Imagine that you go into a bank, and ask for a large personal loan. The loan officer looks over your current finances and says
Loan Officer: "You don't seem to have enough to even justify asking for a loan this large, let alone actually qualify for it. What gives?

To which you respond:
"There's a chance I'll win $500,000,000 at precisely noon on my upcoming birthday."

It's one thing to acknowledge that the possibility exists, however remote. It's entirely another thing to use that remote possibility as a part of your decision-making process and world view.

 

[Donn]

Loan Officer: "You don't seem to have enough to even justify asking for a loan this large, let alone actually qualify for it. What gives?

To which you respond:
"There's a chance I'll win $500,000,000 at precisely noon on my upcoming birthday."

It's one thing to acknowledge that the possibility exists, however remote. It's entirely another thing to use that remote possibility as a part of your decision-making process and world view.

And yet, when you want to do the most galling violence to people's dignity and rights, you dress in vestments and this prints you a free pass. There's one in my neck of the woods who gets his flock to eat snakes, drink petrol, eat grass, allow him to ride them like donkeys.

The vanishingly small possibility of god existing and granting authority to this crass buffoon is a yawning crater of undoubted certainty to his followers.

In this case the bank manager, the priest, is in on it; he encourages and accepts the gullibility of the flock. Multiply and diversify to your own examples.

I still seek a way to tell one of those deluded people a simple story to put that tiny chance into scope. To scale their view out a little.

Perhaps your analogy can become a "credibility loan". It's late, I can't brain.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Short version of my entire pile of responses: It's conflation of possible and plausible.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And yet, when you want to do the most galling violence to people's dignity and rights, you dress in vestments and this prints you a free pass. There's one in my neck of the woods who gets his flock to eat snakes, drink petrol, eat grass, allow him to ride them like donkeys.

The vanishingly small possibility of god existing and granting authority to this crass buffoon is a yawning crater of undoubted certainty to his followers.

In this case the bank manager, the priest, is in on it; he encourages and accepts the gullibility of the flock. Multiply and diversify to your own examples.

I still seek a way to tell one of those deluded people a simple story to put that tiny chance into scope. To scale their view out a little.

Perhaps your analogy can become a "credibility loan". It's late, I can't brain.

If you can come up with a simple way to do that, then you're win the internet and solve the world, all in one swell foop!

Belief is, by its very nature, irrational. You can't counter irrationality with reason.

 

[The Atheist]

The chances of winning are so low that there's not much point in planning.

Unless you've been struck by lightning.

Entertainment is a thing. Some people get it from buying a lottery ticket, some people go to the movies, some people play Kerbal Space Program hunt sasquatch.

As long as they're meeting their other obligations, there's no harm.

I've changed that a little, because it's reinforcement of what I started out saying.

 

[Mudcat]

Waffle - slang for chat.
Bollocks - slang for testicles.

In the context that it's normally used I always thought it meant bull ****, and had always used it that way.

Yeah but because we know the origins of Big Foot are FICTION then we can't move forward pretending fiction is a possibility.

Otherwise we'd have allow for the possibility that Transformers could really exist too.

The difference herein is that there really could be a race of sentient robots somewhere in the universe, and there really is not a species of giant ape like hominids hiding undiscovered in North America.

 

[The Atheist]

In the context that it's normally used I always thought it meant bull ****, and had always used it that way.

You're both right.

Bollocks is used as either slang for testicles or nonsense.

Context.