General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

So we have clear answers how the world works? No, we don't. You are missing my point. If it was done by El Quida, it was a terrible event in the world.

El Quida - the spicier, cheesier Mexican version of al-Qaeda

I blame the C.L.I.T. for all of this.

I'd happily do it, but Snappie isn't a supporter of the contention that 9/11 had any element of conspiracy though as far as I have read in this thread, from what he's posted it seems that he is just saying that both sides of this discussion will unlikely change their opinions. From the several pages of content so far, it appears that he is right.

but i love Mexican food. when i saw the planes hit those those towers, i instantly thought, "people who eat good Mexican would never fly planes into buildings!" so i feel it's self evident El Quida had no part in all of this.

**look at this web page where 1500 foodies agree with me

**and here's 50 other links on how awesome Mexican food is

so much evidence. so many unanswered questions.

anyway, what does it matter? we've all got good views on this. so much discussion. it has to mean something, right? we've really accomplished something here, so let's all grab some margaritas to celebrate.

Snappie and Acomb joining forces is something wonderful imo. with their incredible powers of delusion combined, anything is possible.

"reality? rationality? pshaw. that's just like, your opinion man. if it feels right, just do it, man. just feel it. that's real. don't you see? don't you get it?"

+1 for Acomb and Snappie podcast.

? Dude. You have issues with me I can't even compete with. First you bomb me PM because I was derailing your thread and what not and now I am delusional for saying what I just did? Seriously? haha

I'd happily do it, but Snappie isn't a supporter of the contention that 9/11 had any element of conspiracy though as far as I have read in this thread, from what he's posted it seems that he is just saying that both sides of this discussion will unlikely change their opinions.

Exactly.

El Quida - the spicier, cheesier Mexican version of al-Qaeda

I blame the C.L.I.T. for all of this.

Im dutch. I can spell it whatever I like ;p

People that argue against conspiracy are pretty much in the same boat. They believe with every viber in their body that they are right because fact says so.

They believe it because that is what the evidence points to.

Everybody decides how things have happened based on their own worldview. Everything around you is perspective, nothing more. For some, 9/11 was a glorious day.

We have empirical evidence that points to what happen. Can we be 100% sure that it is the absolute truth? Can you be 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow?

So we have clear answers how the world works? No, we don't. You are missing my point. If it was done by El Quida, it was a terrible event in the world. If it was done by the goverment, we will never find out most likely. Still, the same horrible event.

There is no truth about how the word works man. Believing that is ilussion.

I understand your point completely, I just think it's wrong.

Can we be 100% sure that it is the absolute truth? Can you be 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow?

No. No. And that was my point.

[here's an excerpt from Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (edited by me for conciseness)]


Linda: Less Is More

Linda is thirty-one years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.

Which alternative is more probable?
Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

Now focus on the critical items in the list: Does Linda look more like a bank teller, or more like a bank teller who is active in the feminist movement? Everyone agrees that Linda fits the idea of a “feminist bank teller” better than she fits the stereotype of bank tellers.

The twist comes in the judgments of likelihood, because there is a logical relation between the two scenarios. Think in terms of Venn diagrams. The set of feminist bank tellers is wholly included in the set of bank tellers, as every feminist bank teller is a bank teller. Therefore the probability that Linda is a feminist bank teller must be lower than the probability of her being a bank teller. When you specify a possible event in greater detail you can only lower its probability. The problem therefore sets up a conflict between the intuition of representativeness and the logic of probability.

When we extended the experiment, we found that 89% of the undergraduates in our sample violated the logic of probability. We were convinced that statistically sophisticated respondents would do better, so we administered the same questionnaire to doctoral students in the decision-science program of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, all of whom had taken several advanced courses in probability, statistics, and decision theory. We were surprised again: 85% of these respondents also ranked “feminist bank teller” as more likely than “bank teller.”

In what we later described as “increasingly desperate” attempts to eliminate the error, we introduced large groups of people to Linda and asked them this simple question.

About 85% to 90% of undergraduates at several major universities chose the second option, contrary to logic. Remarkably, the sinners seemed to have no shame. When I asked my large undergraduate class in some indignation, “Do you realize that you have violated an elementary logical rule?” someone in the back row shouted, “So what?” and a graduate student who made the same error explained herself by saying, “I thought you just asked for my opinion.”

The word fallacy is used, in general, when people fail to apply a logical rule that is obviously relevant. Amos and I introduced the idea of a conjunction fallacy, which people commit when they judge a conjunction of two events (here, bank teller and feminist) to be more probable than one of the events (bank teller) in a direct comparison. As in the Müller-Lyer illusion, the fallacy remains attractive even when you recognize it for what it is. The naturalist Stephen Jay Gould described his own struggle with the Linda problem. He knew the correct answer, of course, and yet, he wrote, “a little homunculus in my head continues to jump up and down, shouting at me—‘but she can’t just be a bank teller; read the description.’”

No. No. And that was my point.

Does that mean that if two people make a prediction - one predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow, and one predicts that the sun will not rise tomorrow; those predictions are both equally valid?

Another scenario:

The Black Plague killed millions of people during the Middle Ages. There are two basic views on why it happened: a) It was a plague caused by God to punish man for his sins or b) it was caused by bacteria and was spread from poor sanitation.

The end result is the same either way - people died. Does it matter how/why it happened? According to you it doesn't, which is correct if we restrict ourselves to absolute end result. But if you want to state that each viewpoint is equally beneficial to society then you are absolutely wrong.

[excerpt from Thinking, Fast and Slow cont.]


The most representative outcomes combine with the personality description to produce the most coherent stories. The most coherent stories are not necessarily the most probable, but they are plausible [ed: i'd also add that plausibility depends on one's biases], and the notions of coherence, plausibility, and probability are easily confused by the unwary.

The uncritical substitution of plausibility for probability has pernicious effects on judgments when scenarios are used as tools of forecasting. Consider these two scenarios, which were presented to different groups, with a request to evaluate their probability:

A massive flood somewhere in North America next year, in which more than 1,000 people drown

An earthquake in California sometime next year, causing a flood in which more than 1,000 people drown

The California earthquake scenario is more plausible than the North America scenario, although its probability is certainly smaller. As expected, probability judgments were higher for the richer and more detailed scenario, contrary to logic. This is a trap for forecasters and their clients: adding detail to scenarios makes them more persuasive, but less likely to come true.

Does that mean that if two people make a prediction - one predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow, and one predicts that the sun will not rise tomorrow; those predictions are both equally valid?

this is just a basic failure of probabilistic thinking. and most def a catastrophic failure if one also happens to be a poker player.

this is just a basic failure of probabilistic thinking. and most def a catastrophic failure if one also happens to be a poker player.

Not sure I agree, but that is irrelevant because I was using an analogy where we are making a prediction about future events when we are discussing events that happened in the past.

Change of pace? Something everyone can agree on? lol
Biggest hoax in history = Global Warming Swindle = more global taxes, global control rules/laws.

Pope Gore = "Bad People"
Can anyone debate Pope Gore (GW cult)? Many would like a real public debate/talk with him, but nope. Pope Al Gore hides from debates like Mayweather ducks real fighters in their prime.

But somehow, the coward still won a Nobel peace prize, even after his movie was proven factually incorrect in many areas. He has made about $100million off the scheme (after taxes).

In Jan. 2006, POPE AL GORE said we had 10 years left before earth became a frying-pan.
Countdown clock for his prediction is at
3 yrs + 313 days + 9 hours + 22 minutes ..... before GlobalWarming completely destroys planet earth. LOL

I predict that we will head towards another ice-age before the world comes to an end by Global Warming (complete hoax). Remember this prediction.

OK. Just having fun (and getting this debate in MyThreads.)
Back to the other "Bad People" debate.

No, SCS. They are not both equally valid.

I do think that the arguments for 9/11 not being a 'goverment job' are better then the arguments of the conspiracy-side. I just don't believe you can say 'no, it's 100% not possible that it was a goverment job', or 'no, it was 100% a goverment job'.

In this case, it might be good to not 100% believe the goverment and everything they say. I think its good to listen to the other side no matter how weird it might come across from your own worldview.

And please, don't act like this debate was for the benefit of the world. This thread is a typical 'i am right, and you are wrong' "debate", where people where getting insulting towards eachothers calling eachother idiots and retarted and what not.

Thats not a debate, thats just being dumb, young and not able to discuss things respectfully. And if you then look at how many people died during that awful day, it's kind of a pathetic debate, which is what i meant with: Does it really matter, people died. It was a terrible day. No matter what.

Change of pace? Something everyone can agree on? lol
Biggest hoax in history = Global Warming Swindle = more global taxes, global control rules/laws.

I think it was a pretty interesting documentary The Global Warming Swindle