4 ms·
I haven't understood this as a fallacy. In the "suspicious coin" example, there is an opening assumption that the coin is fair, but it transpires clear evidenc
by throwaway2245 6y ago
I haven't understood this as a fallacy.
In the "suspicious coin" example, there is an opening assumption that the coin is fair, but it transpires clear evidence to the contrary.
It isn't a fallacy to continue to treat this as a game: it has just become sensible to drop the assumption and treat it as a game where you are unsure about whether the coin is fair (as the second player in the example, in fact, does).
- thih9 6y ago> In the "suspicious coin" example, there is an opening assumption I understood it differently: there are no assumptions per se, just a request to make an assumption. The request is made by a third party and all this is part of the thought experiment. > It isn't a fallacy to continue to treat this as a game True. The article states that “The ludic fallacy here is to assume that in real life the rules from the purely hypothetical model (where Dr. John is correct) apply.”. > treat it as a game where you are unsure about whether the coin is fair This significantly modifies the scope of the original game. I understood this as an example of how simplified models might easily stop being useful because of real life conditions.
- gmuslera 6y agoThat is the difference between a model and the reality. It "should" be fair, but in reality (with all the factors you see, and maybe several others that you don't) it seem to not be working that way.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]