Cake-baking contest - Fallacy of denying causality

Hi,

This is a very interesting fallacy to analyze from an epistemological perspective. It could perhaps be called something like the fallacy of denying the need to rely on and obey theoretical calculations and causal inferences.

It could also be the fallacy of overestimating the reliability and accuracy of witness testimony and underestimating the reliability and accuracy of theoretical calculations and causal inferences.

Let’s say that there is a massive cake-baking contest going on where the one who has the nicest chocolate cake will win 10 Million USD.

You are the judge who will decide who wins the price money.

Linda comes to you and claims that she has baked the chocolate nicest cake in the world and got five witnesses(one of them is Peter who is a world-renowned chocolate cake baker) to testify to this. The chocolate cake was however eaten by Linda and her witnesses before going to you so the only thing you have to go on is their testimonies.

Another participant then asks to speak to you in private. She says that Linda is most likely cheating and shows you a movie of Lindas kitchen before the moment she is supposed to have baked this amazing chocolate cake. You then notice that Lindas oven is broken and that she has not chocolate powder or other ingredients needed to bake a chocolate cake. There is a video camera outside the kitchen that shows that when Linda arrived to the kitchen she did not have any groceries with her and only she has been in the kitchen from then on. This means that Linda lacked the needed resources to have produced the chocolate nicest cake in the world.

Based on this you make a causal inference and calculate the probability for Linda to have baked the chocolate nicest cake in the world to 0% or at least a very low probability. You use the causal claim that the cake can’t have been produced out of thin air.

You tell Linda about this matter and she becomes furious.She says “Why would I lie? I’m the most honest person in the world”.

Her friend Peter then says that:
"There is no justification for you to use theoretical calculations and causal inference to reach a decision that Linda most likely didn’t bake a cake in her kitchen and deny her the right to win this contest and get the price money ".

“You were not in the kitchen and therefore can’t know that Linda didn’t bake an amazing chocholate cake”.

“Your theoretical calculations and causal inferences on paper are not as trustworthy as Linda and our testimony. Give us the money”! :smiley:

What Peter is saying could be formed as a universal claim that:
Accuracy(Witness testimony) > Accuracy(theoretical calculations and causal inferences)

How would you respond to Peter? How would you explain that he wants us to commit a fallacy in this case? :slight_smile:

Thanks

If I am to judge cakes and decide which is best, then Linda baking a cake and eating it means she has no cake for me to judge. Sorry Linda, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, not when I’m the judge of cakes. Hey Linda, here’s a suggestion, next time you bake a cake for a cake contest, don’t eat it. Duh?

Duplicate

Duplicate