[extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs

[Harvey Newstrom]

Spike writes: 

> 
> You wish to buy a gorf but you are unsure of
> what kind to buy.  You ask a number of people and find
> that opinion is divided.  Most say the red gorfs
> and green gorfs are indistinguishable, that they
> taste exactly the same.  A small but vocal minority
> says that red gorfs are better than green gorfs,
> and will even pay much more for them in times of
> red gorf scarcity.  No one is actually arguing
> that the green gorfs are superior, only that they
> are *equal* to the reds in every way. 
> 
> Which do you buy?  If their prices are equal would
> you bet that the minority *might* be right?  Or that
> there is a small chance they are right?  If even a
> small chance exists, you would choose the red gorf, right?
> Does this constitute a logical fallacy?

I can see a number of fallacies implied in this story. 

1.  Appeal to authority.  You can't show that red is better than green, but 
other people say it is.
2.  Appeal to popularity.  If a lot of people believe it, it must be true.
3.  Pascal's wager.  Let's act like it is true because the possible benefit 
is greater than the cost of being wrong.
4.  Intangible benefit.  You can't taste the difference, but you buy the red 
ones supposedly for better taste. 

 --
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com>