errors in critical thinking

PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
Folk reasoning is often flawed. You might not know a logical fallacy when it comes out of your own mouth. What do you make of this argument?

I got a speeding ticket.
Jim got a speeding ticket.
My speeding ticket was justified and clearly explained.
Therefore Jim's speeding ticket was justified and clearly explained.
Bad Pig
Bad to the bone!
The Notorious P.I.G.
"I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
"I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
Jadenjimmorrison369capibara

Comments

  • ShadowaceAzShadowaceAz Member Posts: 3,402
    I make a common Ham on Rye sandwich. Did you get something else by combining them? I was hoping for a legendary Cheesesteak.
    Ah well, guess the RNG gods hate me!
    Descensus in cuniculi cavum
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    Concordia

    JadenMabikijimmorrison369
  • MabikiMabiki Member Posts: 1,732
    True that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. But not being privy to Jim's ticket, or the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop, it is natural for me to assume that Jim received similar treatment to me, even if that is not necessarily the case.

    And if Jim had time to start a thread about the ticket before he was sent to jail over the matter, then he clearly knew the cops were on to him, but apparently he didn't slow down.
    jimmorrison369
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    My experience getting a ticket might slightly raise the prior probability against Jim's claim that his ticket was unfair being true, but that's only the prior, and a sample size of 1 can't justify a large change in the prior anyway. In any case, it's only the prior, and specific evidence in the case of Jim's ticket--like even his own testimony since he's never given anyone any reason to doubt his personal integrity and credibility--can easily overcome that prior probability.

    The original speeding charge was brought against Jim on the testimony of a single person, and the arresting officer made no attempt to examine the actual evidence. There is publicly available evidence that Jim, although it was claimed he was speeding, was always travelling within the speed limit. By contrast, his accuser was in fact speeding (again, the evidence is clear and public).

    When Jim saw the false accusation and the refusal to consider the publicly available evidence, he announced his intention to stop driving altogether, and ran afoul of other traffic rules which would normally warrant only a citation and maybe temporary impounding of his vehicle. Instead, he gets life in prison with no warning or explanation. He woke up and found himself incarcerated.
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
    ScowleyJadenjimmorrison369
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    edited February 2018
    So you've had a speeding ticket, and so has Jim. I'll tell you about my two speeding tickets. Whatever else you might think of me, I've never given you reason to think I'm dishonest. So these accounts should influence your assessment of the prior probability that Jim's ticket might have been unfair.

    Once, I was speeding and got a deserved ticket. I made no protest. But I was charged with four things: speeding, following too close, failing to signal, and driving under the influence. I admitted that I was speeding and following too close, but I gave specific evidence that I did not fail to signal and was not under the influence. The officer who charged me refused to consider the evidence, even though I offered it politely and respectfully. Another officer later conceded that I was right, and had not failed to signal and had not been under the influence. But the original officer never admitted his error.

    The second time I was actually warned by a well-respected officer (different from the other two in my first story) that I was close to exceeding the speed limit and, if I did, he'd cite me. Well, I was a little cheeky, and I revved my engine a bit, but I didn't exceed the speed limit at all. Like in Jim's case, the evidence is clear and publicly available that I did not commit the crime.

    This didn't stop the officer, who promptly slapped me with a speeding ticket. When I asked for clarification, politely and respectfully, the officer ignored me completely. No response. I waited a few days because I figured the officer was busy and I didn't want to be a pain. Then I again politely and respectfully asked the officer for an explanation of why I was charged with speeding when I never exceeded the speed limit. His response was total silence. I ended up paying the whole fine, with no recourse. I even spoke to a fourth officer who said he agreed the department was heavy handed, but that there was nothing he could do.

    So in Jim's case we've backed off the absolute claim that a single personal experience with a speeding ticket proves something about all speeding tickets. Now we've conceded that at most it influences probabilities. So I've explained that prior probabilities, especially based on so limited a sample size as 1, do little to overturn specific evidence in individual cases. I have also offered further evidence, in the form of my own testimony, that should influence how we estimate the prior probability. I believe it's clear that the prior probability that Jim's speeding ticket was unfair and poorly explained is higher than you initially thought, and that the evidence in Jim's specific case is strong enough to overturn a low prior anyway.
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
    DLHjimmorrison369
  • MabikiMabiki Member Posts: 1,732
    This would be so much easier if allegory were not necessary.

    I have met some arresting officers who were out of control. Sometimes even their fellow boys in blue couldn't reel them in quickly enough to avoid bad consequences.

    I don't have the time or inclination to look at all the alleged evidence (unless you care to share handy links), and that's OK, because that's not my job. For those whose job it is, they should definitely do so. But, at a glance, some of the publicly available evidence is not entirely favorable to Jim. Not having a radar gun myself, I can't say for sure whether he was speeding, and even then, I would have to make sure it were properly calibrated beforehand. I did notice that both his and that other car were trading a little bit of paint. That creates danger for everyone on the road.

    Maybe Jim can file an appeal, or have a lawyer file one on his behalf. It is probably in his best interest to not have his cellmates put fliers on the prison bulletin board about how wrongly he was treated by the cops, even if that is the case.Actually, fliers are probably OK. But starting fires in cells is only going to bring the SWAT team, and definitely won't help Jim get out of Rikers.
    jimmorrison369
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    edited February 2018
    My pessimism about getting Jim fair treatment is stronger than yours. I don't see how his chances could be made worse.

    Allegory is limiting us, for sure, but let me try this. It's true that Jim used his accelerator pedal, even more than the other guy did. But the question is not how often you use the accelerator pedal. The question is whether you do so within the speed limit, which Jim always did. By contrast, the other guy exceeded the speed limit a few times. When he saw Jim accelerating, it seems he did not understand the difference between merely accelerating, on the one hand, and exceeding the speed limit on the other. So his acceleration was a response to Jim's, but Jim's was within the speed limit in the first place and the other guy's response was not.

    It's like Jim was just trying to get from A to B, but he saw B destinations frequently so he had to accelerate frequently to get to them. The other guy saw all that frequent use of the accelerator, and assumed Jim wanted to drag race. When Jim pointed out to an officer that the other guy's drag racing attempts were dangerous and against the law, the officer responded by charging Jim with drag racing too. Jim tried to reason with the officer, but no discussion was entertained.

    Then Jim in his frustration announced his intention to stop driving, but broke some other traffic rules in the process. That's when, again, he was given a life sentence instead of the warning, or citation, or even impounding that any of his offences, real or imagined, ever deserved.
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    For the record, I have nothing against the other guy. His infractions were minor and I'm glad the officers have let him off the hook. But Jim is an upstanding member of his community and does not deserve the treatment he's received. Even if he were guilty of all charges, which he's not, he wouldn't deserve the lifetime incarceration he seems to have received.
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
    DLH
  • MabikiMabiki Member Posts: 1,732
    I think this is the part of the story where Mabiki, unable to see what exactly was happening from his vantage point, pulled over to the side of the road and sent some random, unrelated texts, waiting for the whole thing to work itself out. Or not. As the case may be.
    Pig
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    I don't fault you for not taking the time to examine the speed measurements. But Jim always used the accelerator when he genuinely thought it was useful and when it was within the speed limit. He never meant to challenge anyone to a drag race.

    Thanks for joining me in this thought experiment, @Mabiki. I know it's an unconventional way to get your attention and engage, so I'm grateful for your patience and response.
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
  • MabikiMabiki Member Posts: 1,732
    If Mabiki even knew where to check the speeds, he might consider doing so. But he is not one for scavenger hunts, and is aware that others might be wary of pointing out where the speed traps exist.

    He is prone to assume the cop had good reason for writing the ticket, as all hard-working citizens are prone to do, but knows that there is such a thing as bad cops as well, and he's known a few folks who ran into such officers in the past. And he definitely knows that the side of the road is safe. He's the type of driver who might accelerate or brake to disrupt the traffic if he thought he knew exactly what was going on, but in the absence of such knowledge, he is riding the shoulder to ensure his own vehicle takes no damage and his insurance doesn't go up.
    jimmorrison369
  • SPC_TORRESSPC_TORRES Member Posts: 1,948
    Sorry to butt in, well done guys!
    Really enjoyed the read

    DLHantjimmorrison369
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    There's certainly something to be said for playing it safe, @Mabiki.
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
  • MabikiMabiki Member Posts: 1,732
    edited February 2018
    Pig said:

    My pessimism about getting Jim fair treatment is stronger than yours. I don't see how his chances could be made worse.

    Allegory is limiting us, for sure, but let me try this. It's true that Jim used his accelerator pedal, even more than the other guy did. But the question is not how often you use the accelerator pedal. The question is whether you do so within the speed limit, which Jim always did. By contrast, the other guy exceeded the speed limit a few times. When he saw Jim accelerating, it seems he did not understand the difference between merely accelerating, on the one hand, and exceeding the speed limit on the other. So his acceleration was a response to Jim's, but Jim's was within the speed limit in the first place and the other guy's response was not.

    It's like Jim was just trying to get from A to B, but he saw B destinations frequently so he had to accelerate frequently to get to them. The other guy saw all that frequent use of the accelerator, and assumed Jim wanted to drag race. When Jim pointed out to an officer that the other guy's drag racing attempts were dangerous and against the law, the officer responded by charging Jim with drag racing too. Jim tried to reason with the officer, but no discussion was entertained.

    Then Jim in his frustration announced his intention to stop driving, but broke some other traffic rules in the process. That's when, again, he was given a life sentence instead of the warning, or citation, or even impounding that any of his offences, real or imagined, ever deserved.

    So, after trying to dissect this a little further, do I have it correct?

    Marklar was a bit of a dick to Marklar. Marklar clicked a bunch of disagrees on Marklar's posts, but slowly, and technically within the rules but still a total dick marklar.

    Marklar saw this, and feeling like he was being attacked or singled out by Marklar, used his marklar at full force to stop Marklar's marklar, and also clicked a bunch of disagrees himself because of his marklar.

    This immense show of marklar by Marklar caught Marklar off-guard and upset him. Marklar asked a marklar to intercede, but was told that his marklar was marklar, when he was expecting the marklar to deal with the other marklar and not his own marklar. Marklar admittedly started the whole thing, but it was Marklar who was at fault, because he responded to Marklar with too much marklar.

    Upset with this focus on his marklar, Marklar announced his intention to marklar, but violated some marklar in the pursuit of his marklar. Then he was suddenly marklared by the marklars. And a bunch of marklars think that action was marklar.

    Yep, makes total sense...
    Pigjimmorrison369
  • MabikiMabiki Member Posts: 1,732
    edited February 2018
    deleted to avoid further damage to his car

    ...
    Pig
  • TJSTJS Member Posts: 4,501
    edited February 2018
    And while riding the shoulder to avoid damage to his own car he drank himself stupid then ran over a dozen innocent people. He then fled the scene. Waking the next morning and checked the news to find out that nobody was seriously injured. Therefore he believes he's still holding the moralistic high ground...

    Yeah makes perfect sense ;)
    -
    TJS  -  Member of W-S
    Nation Wars 🇦🇺 Australian Team Captain
  • MabikiMabiki Member Posts: 1,732
    If I say it was just a joke, does that make it okay? Cause I heard that makes it okay.
    jimmorrison369
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    Mabiki said:

    Marklar was a bit of a dick to Marklar. Marklar clicked a bunch of disagrees on Marklar's posts, but slowly, and technically within the rules but still a total dick marklar.

    No, not like that. If there was any clicking of anything involved, then Jim--I mean Marklar clicked a certain marklar when he genuinely meant it, not because of the person who posted but because of the content. This can be seen in context, which is what I would have meant about "publicly available evidence" if I was talking about clicking things. Lots of people were, uh, using their accelerators at the same times because they were worried about Tolkein dilution or something like that. And those lots of people, for the record, were not all rodentia.

    So this was not slow and technicality-defended trolling. It was just genuine, natural use of the accelerator. In fact, Jim himself was surprised when he saw the total of accelerations he had done. He simply hadn't realised it was that many, because he was honestly marklaring content, not targeting a person.

    "Marklar saw this, and feeling like he was being attacked or singled out by Marklar, used his marklar at full force to stop Marklar's marklar, and also clicked a bunch of disagrees himself because of his marklar."

    Yes, that's how I understand it. He accelerated on certain bends in the road where it just doesn't even make sense to accelerate. You can see those bends on the map. It's not that one might accelerate and another might choose not to, in a natural way. It's things like mere statements of fact and data that got marklared, fairly clear abuse of the marklar.

    "This immense show of marklar by Marklar caught Marklar off-guard and upset him. Marklar asked a marklar to intercede, but was told that his marklar was marklar, when he was expecting the marklar to deal with the other marklar and not his own marklar. Marklar admittedly started the whole thing, but it was Marklar who was at fault, because he responded to Marklar with too much marklar."

    No. It was because he responded with unprincipled marklar. If it had been genuine marklar, Marklar wouldn't have liked it probably, but he wouldn't have seen it as abuse of the marklar. Marklar had no idea he was "starting" any "whole thing." He simply marklared when he honestly marklared. That's what the marklar is there for. It should just be removed if honest marklar about content is not meant to be expressed by clicking marklar. I hope that marklars sense.

    "Upset with this focus on his marklar, Marklar announced his intention to marklar, but violated some marklar in the pursuit of his marklar. Then he was suddenly marklared by the marklars. And a bunch of marklars think that action was marklar."

    Indeed. This is the most nonsense marklar I've ever seen. Some of my marklars and others' haven't made sense, but there have been enormously funny sides to them. I thought my own marklars were hilarious, for example. But this one, no. I've been pretty marklar about it, obviously, and probably owe you an apology for some of my posting today. I've come to know you as seeming to have a pretty thick skin, so I'm sure you're alright. But I am sorry for throwing marklar posts at you.
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    I've never smurfed so many marklars in one smurf before.
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
  • CronusCronus Member Posts: 1,186
    Anyone who's read the Lord of the Rings is intimately familiar with Tolkein dilution.....
    PigJadenant
  • PigPig Member Posts: 1,870
    Jenng said:


    My critical thinking might be nerfed.

    *smurfed
    Bad Pig
    Bad to the bone!
    The Notorious P.I.G.
    "I'm stuck in forum prison, and time keeps draggin' on"
    "I’ve never said I’m a perfect pig, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not."
    JenngJaden
  • MadPuppyMadPuppy Member Posts: 2,831
    Pig said:

    I've never smurfed so many marklars in one smurf before.

    I can't help but find that nasty! :D
    PigJadenJenng
  • jesterjester Member Posts: 2,747
    > @Mabiki said:
    > If I say it was just a joke, does that make it okay? Cause I heard that makes it okay.


    It depends on the joke that Marklar or Jim actually made. Do we want the police to enforce every and all traffic laws by the letter or are we asking them to consider intent?
  • jimmorrison369jimmorrison369 Member Posts: 2,007
    jester said:

    > @Mabiki said:

    > If I say it was just a joke, does that make it okay? Cause I heard that makes it okay.





    It depends on the joke that Marklar or Jim actually made. Do we want the police to enforce every and all traffic laws by the letter or are we asking them to consider intent?

    Neither and both.
    jester
Sign In or Register to comment.