Pascal's Wager -- In Reverse!

[evangelicalhumanist]

Pascal’s Wager – in Reverse!


Have you ever noticed? In spite of the occasional “hung jury,” it seems to be true that juries almost always manage to reach a unanimous verdict after they have carefully deliberated over all the evidence presented to them.

And have you ever noticed? In spite of some strong opinions, it is almost a commonplace that a scientific symposium can produce some pretty substantial “general agreement” over the issue at hand.

The lawyers for both sides in the jury example are not usually particularly “honest,” in that they don’t present or acknowledge evidence that doesn’t support the cause they espouse. But the jury is (we must assume) essentially honest. And the attendees at the symposium usually focus on the evidence for whatever conclusion(s) they must evaluate, rather than on the conclusion(s) per se.

So in both cases, there is honesty happening – in the jury or in the honest inquirers after true knowledge. It’s an interesting thing to consider that a “winner” in court is one who gets somebody to change sides, while a winner in a science symposium is somebody who has changed sides because of evidence presented!

But in religious debate – so far as I have observed – nobody ever changes sides. Of course, we must always accept that the presentation of “evidence” is going to be somewhat more problematic, but that can’t be the end of it. Even in the absence of evidence, we know that there are still mechanisms by which we can ultimately agree. But see Aumann. What Aumann says is that eventually, one side will change based on the level of certainty of the other being greater than the certainty he can muster for his own position. (Scott Aaronson showed that this can occur, when both parties are honest, in a reasonable amount of time.)

So, when a Christian arguing hell/salvation says to me, for example, “I don’t believe, I know,” and I repeat the same back at him, what can we deduce about our relative degrees of certainty? And that’s where the subject for this thread (Pascal’s Wager in Reverse) comes in. When the Christian says, “I know,” he risks absolutely nothing. If he’s wrong, well, he’ll just be dead one day and that’s it. But if he’s right, he gets the biggest imaginable reward. And if I’m wrong? I risk everything! And there is no reward for being right.

So, which of us, do you think, is the most sure of his own position?

[Baruch]

I heard Aumann while driving on Thusday, to get to my New Year's Eve party 5 hours away from where I live. He had an interesting toy problem regarding certainty of a person being impacted by the certainty of the other person, because even as they refuse to change (the first couple of rounds) ... they are actually still learning new information about each other, and on that basis one of them might change anyway. It is only when both positions are fixed, and that no more information is being exchanges, not just repetition of existing position, that stasis is achieved. It is interesting that he is still harping on a toy problem 33 years later! His math in that article only works if both participants are rational, which is usually not the case in the real world.

juries almost always manage to reach a unanimous verdict

.... anyone who has been on a jury can tell you, the process in that case is anything if dispassionate, nor is it solely determined by the evidence at hand. Juries don't determine truth, they determine guilt. Hence innocent parties can and are convicted. The reason behind this is very ancient ... at least one member of the tribe must be sacrificed to propitiate the angry gods. It is best if this is the actual perpetrator, but before modern times, this was almost impossible to determine anyway. Hence in the 1920s (as reported by Walter Cronkite), in Houston TX for instance, the police would go and grab the first African-American male they came across, and charge him with the capital crime (unless they actually had a good idea who the perp was). Then they would convict the usually innocent Black man, as an offering to the gods. Not unlike the Aztecs. You have led, ironically, a pretty sheltered life, as have I. The real world works by tooth and claw.

On the other hand, a post-structuralist analyst, has examined theoretical particle physics as a culture, and concluded consensus or no, that it is pretty much a ritual to apportion honor and grant money, not unlike a business meeting of Cardinals at the Vatican. Experimental results are eventually conclusive, though given human bias and error, it can be dicey at first (see Cold Fusion). And even when conclusive, theoretical understanding can take additional decades (see superconductivity) or remain controversial (see standard particle theory) because of more than one adequate candidate for explanation, or because of holes in the argument of the sole candidate.

As far as Pascal's wager goes, it is a red herring (but thus allowable to Catholics on Fridays . You could both be wrong. Judaism might be the answer, so Pascal loses for being Catholic and you lose for being agnostic. I submit to you that there is a hidden fallacy in that argument, going forward or backward!

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

...His math in that article only works if both participants are rational, which is usually not the case in the real world.

Do you know, I had occasion recently to comment that I do think that even many religious people (and I'll use that word "religious" in a catholic sense, meaning anybody who binds themselves to anything, with or without gods) are perfectly capable of being rational, and in fact usually are "practicably rational." It is only those who we now (perhaps incorrectly) label "fundamentalists" who reject rationality in favour of dogma. (And once again, I use the term fundamentalist to include those atheists trapped in their own dogma.) In fact, what I said in that other comment was:

The more I observe of the mind of the religious fundamentalist (as opposed to the spiritually-minded seeker after truth and meaning in life and perhaps more), the more I become convinced that sources, evidence and knowledge are completely irrelevant.

In fact, I'm coming to believe that there are two essential kinds of people when it comes to this dimension of human thought:

1. Those for whom knowledge, observation, evidence and reason may well lead to a reinterpretation of previous beliefs and opinions.
2. Those for whom belief and opinion are untouchable and equated with "knowledge," and for whom observation, evidence and reason must be twisted (or ignored) so as to be made to fit.

The first are called philosophers, scientists, seekers of every kind. The second are called religious fundamentalists.

And never the twain shall meet.

[Baruch]

The following is the Oath of Maimonides ... the original Jewish uber-doctor ... and doctor to Saladin ...

The eternal providence has appointed me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures. May the love for my art actuate me at all time; may neither avarice nor miserliness, nor thirst for glory or for a great reputation engage my mind; for the enemies of truth and philanthropy could easily deceive me and make me forgetful of my lofty aim of doing good to Thy children.
May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.
Grant me the strength, time and opportunity always to correct what I have acquired, always to extend its domain; for knowledge is immense and the spirit of man can extend indefinitely to enrich itself daily with new requirements.
Today he can discover his errors of yesterday and tomorrow he can obtain a new light on what he thinks himself sure of today. Oh, God, Thou has appointed me to watch over the life and death of Thy creatures; here am I ready for my vocation and now I turn unto my calling.

Notice the last two paragraphs regarding egoless epistemology. I consider this oath administered to Jewish doctors today to be superior even to the Hippocratic Oath to Apollo I take it as my personal creed, even though I only assist physicians, I am not one myself.

So yes, it is as possible for a religious humanist to be rational as it is for a secular humanist to be rational. But it isn't mandatory or unavoidable or always desirable. Ideologues of any stripe though, I agree, are not rational.

Shalom

[Kurt]

Grant me the strength, time and opportunity always to correct what I have acquired, always to extend its domain; for knowledge is immense and the spirit of man can extend indefinitely to enrich itself daily with new requirements.
Today he can discover his errors of yesterday and tomorrow he can obtain a new light on what he thinks himself sure of today.
Shalom

These two passages seem particularly beautiful and practical to me, but I wonder about the sudden change in voice. Why go from "Grant me..." to "..he can..."? Would there not be greater continuity if the second paragraph started, "I can..."?

Just wondering.
Kurt

[Baruch]

Good observation ... I have seen several versions of this, and I have seen it say "I can" rather than putting oneself into third person singular. I suspect it is just a difference in translation ... I think "I can" would be closer to the original ... but "one can" adds ambiguity as to if the humility is directed at oneself, or at other doctors, or both

Shalom

[Kurt]

Ah yes, the bloody translations. But sometimes ambiguity is a lure to learning.
Kurt

[Baruch]

Pascal's wager, in reverse? What I want to know, does he have First and Second gear, Parking and Neutral, in addition to Third gear and Reverse.

Shalom

[Kurt]

Remind me...who's Pascal?

Kurt

[Baruch]

The subject of the original post. Pascal was a 17th century French thinker, both mathematician (he invented the mechanical calculator, while still a boy, to help his father (a tax collector) compute taxes), physicist and Christian pietist. Pascal along with Fermat (another French mathematician and gambler) are the inventors of probability theory. On that basis, Pascal thought that his best bet was to be a Catholic. Other odds-makers will differ

Shalom