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

[Harvey Newstrom]

On Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 05:31 pm, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>> Spike writes:
>>> If
>>> most people say red and green gorfs are equal but a
>>> small and perhaps not very credible minority insist
>>> reds are better, while no one is actually claiming the
>>> greens are better, then I would choose a red gorf,
>>> assuming the same price.
>> Spike, this would lead you to superstition.  Throwing salt over your 
>> shoulder after you spill it won't hurt and doesn't cost anything.  
>> Most people say it doesn't matter.  But some few do claim that it 
>> will keep evil away.  So you might as well do it just in case, right? 
>>  The same goes for blessing someone after they sneeze, and avoiding 
>> the path of a black cat, or any other unfounded superstition.  Might 
>> as well do it, just in case, right?
>
> We're talking about a difference in *taste*, right?  There's nothing 
> supernatural about a taste difference that some people can detect and 
> some people can't.  The prior probability of the hypothesis is much 
> higher. Assuming the same price, I'd buy a red gorf.

But I thought it was assumed that the person purchasing the gorf 
couldn't taste the difference.  And that the question was whether they 
should by the red because other people said it was better even though 
the purchaser could not detect any benefit.  If one can taste the 
difference, one should prefer the better tasting one.  But if one can't 
detect a difference, I see no rational for going along with the 
majority.

>  My inclination in such matters is that the thing to do with a 
> hypothesis is test it.

I also thought that the individual had tested it and couldn't taste a 
difference, and the question was whether undetectable claims should be 
allowed to override the majority and the tests.

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