site banner
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You've had an academic sit there and watch you flip a coin 99 times landing it on heads each time?

No. I ask them what is the probability that the next coin flip will land heads.

For it to be a thought experiment you'd need to have actually caught some flawed logic and worked out why it was flawed.

Which I did.

Taleb: "Fine I'll give you 4:1 odds, put up $300 and you can walk away with a cool hundred for catching me in a lie!"

That's 1:3 odds.

Taleb: "I told you it had a 50/50 chance of landing on tails, this is a normal result."

So? You haven't illustrated anything. According to you, you need to show the flawed logic.

No. I ask them what is the probability that the next coin flip will land heads.

So at the end you told them the probability was 50/50 and then asked them what the probability was? Presumably you'd be the one determining if their answer was right or wrong. If they can't trust your premises why should they trust you evaluation?

Which I did.

You did not. Their logic was "I'm going to accept the premise given". You got to decide whether the premise was true or not. The outcome depended entirely whether you decide that the 99 coin flips in a row are the lie(in the form of a coin switch) or the statement about the probability was the lie.

So? You haven't illustrated anything. According to you, you need to show the flawed logic.

It not illustrating anything was the point, I agree I did not show the flawed logic of Tony. I was demonstrating the flawed logic of thinking these stories can be used to show anything at all.

So at the end you told them the probability was 50/50 and then asked them what the probability was?

No, I already said what I specifically did not ask them.

You did not.

I very clearly explained it in the article.

It not illustrating anything was the point

So it had absolutely nothing to do with my thought experiment.