The monty fucking hall problem.

??? You’ll hafta 'splain the last bit.

Fair enough, sometimes common sense ain’t enough, but then that’s what makes aquiring uncommon sense all the more worthwhile, no…?

Be simple enough to test with 2 people and a deck of cards, wouldn’t it? The stats aren’t just numbers in space, if the example is right, switchng really should get you the car (or ace) 66% of the time.

someoneatwhatever is always making absurd and nonsensical claims that he doesn’t even try to justify. Of course his beliefs are irrelevant, its not just numbers in space, which anyone intelligent enough to operate a deck of cards should be able to find out for themselves. His beliefs won’t alter any probability when making the choices or the statistical outcome. Don’t expect any coherency besides complaints about my repeated use of the word ‘absurd’ sad and pathetic.

people don’t believe it only because they don’t ‘get’ it. It works out that way in the real world, regardless of personal opinion. thier lack of belief doesn’t change the probability difference between picking thier card or the non revealed. if they don’t believe, they don’t get it, because thats just how it works out. again master the playing card and get back to us.

:laughing: P’raps we should give SIATD the benefit of the doubt… Maybe he’s operating in an alternate reality, philosophically at least.

siatd makes perfect sense to me

an unjustified prediction is an unjustified prediction

-Imp

How can a prediction be “unjustified”? It’s either going to turn out accurate or inaccurate between subjective opinions based upon the criteria it self-describes.

Men only gather around the predictions that keep proving themselves true, which is the error of taking science as a faith…

it begs the question or it does not.

invalid assumptions are not justified.

-Imp

Justice is ambiguous then … it always gets stuck in hypothetical contexts.

But isn’t that what all predictions are, hypothetical? (until they manifest) So then – what is an “invalid assumption” in context to the hypothetical?

This is interesting, because this logic seems flawed to me when it can’t be practical in any sense whatsoever.

no, logic itself is flawed.

-Imp

That’s exactly the definition of ambiguity – whatever a person is compelled to do is whatever a person is compelled to do.

The situation says nothing until beforehand or afterward in context, until it is discussed and made sense of, otherwise we’re just being. Actions speak louder than words, yes, but what are we doing here on this forum – acting or writing? Where do word acts begin and end? Is this even the problem at hand?

The hypothetical is a memory of something that may or may not be real, according to fiction or nonfiction. Predicating events based on hypothetical contexts are what men instinctively do in order to anticipate the exchange of gunfire. The hypothetical can be true when what is “true” is definitely going to happen (like that I’m going to drive my car within the next two hours).

I want some clarification…

Skepticism & Nihilism continually beg the question. Pragmatism ends it, so it also forces men to decide what is “valid” and what is “invalid”.

It’s only as flawed as flawed men allow it to be. The fallacy of logicians (and most other logically predicated sciences) is that they don’t know how, where, or when to update their language after mistaking it as an absolute authority. I won’t speak for others, but my authority rests in the same place I put my faith…

as a question of faith, it is no more valid as a belief in any god…

-Imp

Ihate my threads degrading to this drivel. This is a testable prediction, people who don’t believe simply can’t wrap thier heads around it, as the same statistical results or close enough happens consistently in the real world WHEN TESTED. leave the BULLSHIT run of the mill arguments against science/statistical predictions until you can show that in the real* world they don’t routinely come true.

again i suggest a deck of cards for those people too incompetent to do the mental math if you don’t ‘get’ it grab some cards if the people in question thinks its faith 200 rounds with a deck will prove them wrong, the correct card *will be in the dealer’s hand consistantly enough to say the prediction is correct.

seriously not all my threads need to be dragged down by philosophy based on the standards of a seven year old. real world ideas have testable predictions, the worth of claims depends on the accuracy of those predictions, not any mental midget’s ideas about thier worth…

What about this Cyrene?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb’s_paradox

Is this philosophically related to your point?

I see it as meaning that there is alot more difficulty to determining probability than it might seem when we just think of dividing fractions.

Another guy I’ve been reading thinks that it’s just a prisoner’s dilemma cut in half.

Game theory rules.

Here’s what I consider to be the most easily grasped explanation for this problem:

Assume that there are ten doors to choose from to begin with, with goats behind nine of them and a car behind only one.

You pick one of the ten doors. Your chance of selecting the door with the car behind it is 10% and the chance that the car is behind one of the other nine doors is 90%.

Then the game show host, who knows which door the car is behind and will not open that door, opens eight of the remaining nine doors to reveal goats behind them. In no way does the fact that eight of the other nine doors have now been opened to reveal goats behind them affect the 10% chance that you selected the correct door to being with. It doesn’t affect it, because YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT AT LEAST EIGHT OF THOSE NINE DOORS HAD GOATS BEHIND THEM!

You are then given the option of keeping the door you picked or of switching to the only other unopened door.

Since it is obviously 90% likely that the car is behind the sole remaining unopened door that you didn’t pick and only 10% likely that it is behind the door that you did pick, only an idiot would keep the door that he originally picked, right?

Well, the same principle applies whether there are three doors to choose from to begin with or ten or a million. The only difference is, is that the odds that you selected the door with the car behind it to begin with obviously get much worse the more doors that there are to choose from. This also means of course that the odds that the car is behind one of the doors that you didn’t select get much better.

I believe the point that Cyrene is making is how cognitive probabilities are processed in more basic and “stupid” people. On a game show, for the host to pick all the incorrect doors and leave the final “chance” at 50-50, then people misinterpret that the odds of picking the correct door ends up as a 50% chance. In reality, those who are more intelligent see through the “game” of the “show” … that they detect that the host is misleading the contestant and the viewers (conceptually) by a “sleight of mind”. In the end, it appears as the pick comes down to a 50% chance, when in reality, the chance was very low to begin with (depending on the amount of doors w/goats behind them).

The “problem” here is how the probability changes in a real-time context. The human mind works cognitively in this manner (compared against an intelligent or ignorant person) by anticipating possible changes and adhering expectations toward them. Most people cannot account for this, because they are literally stupid. However, a more intelligent person will pick up on the clues and eventually understand that the door situation stayed consistent in context from the beginning to the end and the “game show” is a mere illusion to those who are fooled by it.

What would really throw such an “intellect” off is if the game show host randomly picks the correct door from time-to-time rather than leaving it to the last. Then, the odds become randomized again in expectation only … and the “game” loses its appeal (of anticipation of coming down to the final two doors rather than seeing the result straight-out).

You don’t even need two people. You can do it yourself.

Just shuffle two deuces and an ace (the deuces represent the “goats” and the ace, the “car”), and deal them face down in front of you. Pick one of the three cards, being sure to keep it face down. Turn over one of the two cards that you didn’t pick. Then:

A) if the card revealed is an ace (i.e., “the car”), start over because in the “Monty Hall problem,” remember, the host never reveals the car when he opens one of two doors that weren’t picked by the contestant. He always opens a door with a goat behind it.

B) if the card revealed is a deuce (i.e., “a goat”), then either keep your original card OR switch to the other face down card.

By switching, you’ll switch to the ace close to 67% of the time. By keeping your original card, you’ll keep the ace about 33% of the time . . . guaranteed.

If you don’t believe it now, do the experiment and you’ll believe it then.

Or you can mimic the Monty Hall problem by using an entire deck of cards including the joker. Let the joker represent the car.

Deal all 53 cards face down. Choose one card, keeping it face down. Then turn over 51 of the other 52 cards. If the joker is revealed when any of the 51 cards are turned over, start over again because, remember, the game show host in the problem never reveals the car when he opens the door.

If you ever arrive at a situation where only the card that you originally picked and one other card remain unrevealed, then either keep the card that you originally picked or switch to the other card.

By switching to the other card, you’ll switch to the joker 52 out of 53 times. By keeping the card you originally selected, you will have the joker 1 out of 53 times.

Put this way, the problem doesn’t seem so difficult.

Now you have me curious what kind of drivel you were hoping for. I mean, were you intending to just say “The odds are higher if you switch doors, and if you don’t like it, %&#@ YOU!!” and just let the thread die with no responses at all? The thread seems to have gone the way anybody could have predicted, as far as I can see. Sometimes I think you like to have things to complain about. :slight_smile:

I think Cyrene believes that as far as varying degrees of certainty go in epistemology, that the most consistent method of prediction involves the scientific method.

That seems like a pretty uncontroversial position.

I don’t really see anyone arguing against it.

The most interesting thing about it, to me at least, is that in making the point that using a disinterested and mathematically sound method is the best way to have the best knowledge, he resorts to emotional outbursts.

It just goes to show that while we may have different ways of coming to our conclusions, none of us are immune to the effects of our own emotions.

That’s probably also the reason why most people don’t pick the right door.

Since given your remark I assume you are a non-American, things like the evolutionist/creationist debate probably don’t get much attention where you live.

I wish that there were no controversy in America, too, about the relative certainty of scientific method compared to other epistemic methods. Over here, as opposed apparently to the situation in your country, it’s a big problem.