Quote
9er8er
You got the context wrong, so no wonder.
The context is that a poster effectively made the assertion that the outcome necessarily validates the decision. That is simply not true in the matter of probabilistic decision making.
You then came in and said nobody, at least nobody here, can possibly know which decisions would more likely lead to positive outcomes. I tried to lead you to the flaw in that logic. Obviously, if you agree that you or I can reasonably do that in a given scenario, then you can't cling to the premise that it can't be done. So, of course you're not going to answer any questions that would self destruct your argument. Can't do that.
Disappointing indeed.
I don't think said poster made the assertion that you think he did.
You then followed your over broad misunderstanding of his assertion with an erroneous implied assumption.
There was Lamp on the one hand and Everett and Kupp on the other. You proceeded to talk about least likely outcomes which carried an implied assumption that that particular path was the least likely to lead to good results.
But it could be that the Everett/Kupp decision is the most likely to lead to positive results. In such a scenario, the good results may not be total validation of the decision making process, but they are evidence of it. That is what I understood said poster to be asserting.
I was merely highlighting that assumption by pointing out that in this specific instance, you, me, or any whining about the decision don't actually know what the least, likely outcome is.
