I get into a lot of arguments with people.
Being an armchair logician, I notice many mistakes people make, which naturally makes me furious. I am somewhat guilty here too, however, since I use this one a bit – whenever I want to end an argument in an easy way.
EXAMPLE: We can construct an example, so it must be possible, so it must be true somewhere in a perceptively infinite setting.
If you put it like this, it seems obviously false – but people still do it all the time! Listen to this childish conversation:
A: Aliens surely exist.
B: Why?
A: Time is infinite, and everything should be possible during that time.
B: Nonsense.
A: Oh? Then how do humans exist?
B: Do enlighten me.
A: Humans are of such complexity, so universe with its infinite time will produce another kind of intelligent lifeform.
Yes, now I see it’s little different from the original error I wanted to elaborate on, but it does the trick.
Humans are always uncomfortable with the idea of randomness. Although I don’t watch the show, Charlie from NUMB3RS makes good point here:
I believe this sort of behaviour is the general version of what I addressed in the beginning, but I don’t have enough strength to elaborate. Maybe next time.
(In fact, in the video above, Charlie is wrong: A and B both represent raindrops since they occur with same probability. But I think we all get the point here. Also, why is Charlie, a mathematics prof, teaching statistics? The university must surely be very understaffed.)
Posted by Café Racer 