How do you make decisions?

[Eudaimonist]

Does eating vanilla ice-cream result in you having more money?

Yes! That's what I read in the problem description!

But subjects who actually eat vanilla ice cream receive an additional thousand dollars, while subjects who actually eat chocolate ice cream receive no additional payment. You can choose one and only one ice cream to eat.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes! That's what I read in the problem description!

But subjects who actually eat vanilla ice cream receive an additional thousand dollars, while subjects who actually eat chocolate ice cream receive no additional payment. You can choose one and only one ice cream to eat.



eudaimonia,

Mark

I think we're ninja-posting each other I've edited my last post, which should address this.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That is, an evidential theorist would eat chocolate, not vanilla. They see people eating chocolate ice-cream and getting $1,000,000, so they too eat chocolate ice-cream, hoping to get $1,000,000.

That's completely bizarre. Why would anyone do that unless they weren't told the whole story about the conditions of the test? It makes no causal sense.

In my opinion, the problem is poorly/vaguely worded, and the explanation of the evidential theorist's decision doesn't do justice to the theorist - it's basically a strawman.

It must be. I'm feeling very confused now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's completely bizarre. Why would anyone do that unless they weren't told the whole story about the conditions of the test? It makes no causal sense.

I think they're reasoning is, since they've seen the chocolate-eaters get $1,000,000, they too will eat chocolate and thus get $1,000,000, despite what they've been told. But I don't think anyone would reason like that, even a so-called evidential theorist.