My Yigo Challenge

[TLK Valentine]

Did you really just use the equivocation fallacy to try and bolster your position?

He has nothing better -- never does.

 

[Cute Tink]

What about it?

A more appropriate question ... and one that fits the OP is:

What about the person who, up until presented with the challenge of finding Y, refuses to believe Y exists?

Put two people in a room and give each one a map of the world and tell them to find Hell.

Person A, who believes Hell exists, will eventually find it.

Person B, who doesn't believe Hell exists, just might shove the map back and say, "Nice try, but you're not fooling me."

Hell, MI

I don't see how that really addresses the reason why I posted this. The reason I posted that message was because the other poster was contemplating the chances of more diverse options but I didn't see an equivalent to that one

 

[Chany]

What about the person who, up until presented with the challenge of finding Y, had never even heard of Y?

At that point, it would matter of what Y actually is. For example, I thought that Yigo was some random, made-up name to illustrate a point. However, when I discovered Yigo was a place, I simply googled it. Even then, if someone I met was telling me about and gave me details that wouldn't raise an eyebrow, I would assume that Yigo was a real place. If at any point I questioned the existence of Yigo, I could always research and look into it myself.

When dealing with something new, a person should approach it based the apparent realism. Even then, one should probably look things up if something seems amiss.

I would probably say that it would really depend on the person in question, the Y in question, and the details about Y given to the person. Some people are would be good at analyzing and researching information for the claim, some claims are commonplace that they don't require questioning without reason, and some are given good, detailed facts to verify. In short, a skeptic-by-nature would be good in this case. In fact, anyone should be skeptical in the face of an extraordinary claim.

However, I would say that a person who is not skeptical would be horrible in this position.

It really varies on the person. I would still say that a person who is closer to the middle ground is still the best bet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I could be wrong, but I think even psychiatrists would agree that if you don't believe something exists, it will be harder to find than someone who knows it exists.

IOW, not believing something can create a mental block that impairs even the empirical senses.

The problem is that you are presented it in black and white, while in reality there's a lot of grey here. A 'grey' that you are not acknowledging.

For example, you're not acknowledging the difference between "not believing x exists" and "believing x does not exist".

And the word "believe" can be broken up even further...
Is it dogmatic belief? As in: being unwilling to acknowledge that your belief could be wrong. Are you keeping the door open or did you close it already?

It goes both ways as well... believing that x does exist can also be believed dogmatically. There's also a grade of certainty there that is important... are you willing to accept that your belief might be wrong or not?


All these things play a huge rule in the psychological stuff you are refering to, but you are not acknowledging any of it.

So what you do instead, is present a false dichotomy. Reading the replies in this thread though, nobody seems to be buying your rather uncreative nonsense.

 

[Strathos]

Yigo? Isn't that some kind of alien monster written by H.P. Lovecraft?

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is that you are presented it in black and white, while in reality there's a lot of grey here. A 'grey' that you are not acknowledging.

For example, you're not acknowledging the difference between "not believing x exists" and "believing x does not exist".

And the word "believe" can be broken up even further...
Is it dogmatic belief? As in: being unwilling to acknowledge that your belief could be wrong. Are you keeping the door open or did you close it already?

It goes both ways as well... believing that x does exist can also be believed dogmatically. There's also a grade of certainty there that is important... are you willing to accept that your belief might be wrong or not?


All these things play a huge rule in the psychological stuff you are refering to, but you are not acknowledging any of it.

I'll tell you what.

If you ever take part in an experiment like this, just tell the person conducting the experiment what you just told me.

And while your yakking and saying nothing to him, the other guy will find it.

So by the time the conductor tells you to, "Just shut up and take the test!" -- the test is over.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yigo? Isn't that some kind of alien monster written by H.P. Lovecraft?

Thank you for the QED.

 

[[serious]]

In your opinion, who is more apt to find Yigo:

1. Someone who believes Yigo exists.
2. Someone who believes Yigo doesn't exist.

As an added bonus, who is more apt to pronounce Yigo correctly?

Neither. Someone with an accurate description of what and where Yigo is who has the means to travel there is most likely to find it.

For example, prior to this thread, I hadn't heard of Yigo before. I was Yigo agnostic perhaps. But, google gave me a clear indication that Yigo was the norther most town on Guam. Since I now know where and what it is, I could probably "find" it if I had the motivation to go there.

This doesn't help with more poorly defined things like Leprechauns.

In your opinion, who is more apt to find Leprechauns:

1. Someone who believes Leprechauns exist.
2. Someone who believes Leprechauns don't exist.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'll tell you what.

If you ever take part in an experiment like this, just tell the person conducting the experiment what you just told me.

The person conducting the experiment wouldn't conduct anything this idiotically self-serving.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can anyone else recall a time AV failed at one of his own challenges this badly?

 

[Chany]

Can anyone else recall a time AV failed at one of his own challenges this badly?

These aren't challenges; they're thought experiments.

 

[AV1611VET]

In your opinion, who is more apt to find Leprechauns:

1. Someone who believes Leprechauns exist.
2. Someone who believes Leprechauns don't exist.

I don't think one must be a Rhodes scholar to realize that, on average, #1 is the answer.

Even if you said Santa Claus, #1 would be the correct answer on principle.

 

[AV1611VET]

These aren't challenges; they're thought experiments.

It depends on which side of the authorship you're sitting on.

If you think they aren't a challenge -- you create one and see for yourself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't think one must be a Rhodes scholar to realize that, on average, #1 is the answer.

Even if you said Santa Claus, #1 would be the correct answer on principle.

Not so -- Belief is only an issue insofar as it relates to effort.

A nonbeliever who actually looks is more apt to find something than a believer who only assumes.

 

[AV1611VET]

A nonbeliever who actually looks is more apt to find something than a believer who only assumes.

Read my OP again ... they are both looking for Yigo.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Read my OP again ... they are both looking for Yigo.

Read it yourself, AV -- you mention nothing about looking, only finding.

See what happens when you only assume? You even get your own words wrong.

 

[Chany]

Read my OP again ... they are both looking for Yigo.

I've realized another problem.

In the example given, yes, someone trying to find and locate Yugo would be better off believing it existed.

However, the non-believer of Yigo does not believe from a simple lack of knowledge. If you told me to find Yigo, I would ask "what's a Yigo?" I would not deny its existence, unless you told me something completely fantastical. No rational person, given an explanation, would not believe Yigo existed.

This does not apply to cases where both parties, believers and non-believers, are given adequate information about it.

Your "challenge" is specific. I don't see why you posted the challenge.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll tell you what.

If you ever take part in an experiment like this, just tell the person conducting the experiment what you just told me.

And while your yakking and saying nothing to him, the other guy will find it.

So by the time the conductor tells you to, "Just shut up and take the test!" -- the test is over.

The experiment is pointless, unless it is to demonstrate that dogmatic belief will only result in false conclusions (or the inability to evaluate your conclusion as being false if it is).

But please, let's not pretend that the underlying point of your thread is this. It's rather obvious that your actual point is to present a false dichotomy.

A priori conclusions, especially if they are dogmatic, are never a good idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

The experiment is pointless, unless it is to demonstrate that dogmatic belief will only result in false conclusions (or the inability to evaluate your conclusion as being false if it is).

But please, let's not pretend that the underlying point of your thread is this. It's rather obvious that your actual point is to present a false dichotomy.

A priori conclusions, especially if they are dogmatic, are never a good idea.

So if I gave you a Chess position and told you to find a mate-in-three, you would roll your eyes at me and whine something about a false dichotomy?

 

[Chany]

So if I gave you a Chess position and told you to find a mate-in-three, you would roll your eyes at me and whine something about a false dichotomy?

No, because I have no reason to dogmatically believe it is not true.