This is recapitulating a standard argument for one-boxing, and it is well discussed in the literature. The fact the bulk of people who spend their time studying this issue and don’t find this consideration decisive should make you think it is less a silver bullet than you think it is.
I should update slightly towards that direction, yes, but I have to note that the poll you gave me are not just about people who study the issue, but people who also seem to have made a career out of discussing it, and therefore (I would cynically suggest) perhaps wouldn’t like the discussion to be definitively over.
e.g. Theologists and Priests are perhaps not the best people to poll, if you want to determine the existence of God.
Ah, but I just remembered atheism was one of the things you complained about being treated as obviously correct by most of us here? Because the domain experts about God (Theologists and Priests) haven’t come to same conclusion?
This is recapitulating a standard argument for one-boxing,
I don’t feel a pressing need to be non-standard: One-boxing wins, two-boxing loses—that’s all one needs to know for the purpose of choosing between them.
I should update slightly towards that direction, yes, but I have to note that the poll you gave me are not just about people who study the issue, but people who also seem to have made a career out of discussing it, and therefore (I would cynically suggest) perhaps wouldn’t like the discussion to be definitively over.
Sure, but I gather there are other things you can discuss in decision theory besides Newcomb’s problem, so it isn’t like the decision theorists need an artificial controversy about this to keep their jobs.
There are dissimilarities between decision theorists and (say) theologians, priests etc. Decision theorists are unlikely to have prior convictions about decision theory before starting to study it, unlike folks who discuss religion. The relevant domain expert in ‘Does God exist’ would likely be philosophers of religion, although there is a similar selection effect. However, for what it’s worth, I doubt atheist philosophers of religion would consider the LW case for atheism remotely creditable.
I should update slightly towards that direction, yes, but I have to note that the poll you gave me are not just about people who study the issue, but people who also seem to have made a career out of discussing it, and therefore (I would cynically suggest) perhaps wouldn’t like the discussion to be definitively over.
e.g. Theologists and Priests are perhaps not the best people to poll, if you want to determine the existence of God.
Ah, but I just remembered atheism was one of the things you complained about being treated as obviously correct by most of us here? Because the domain experts about God (Theologists and Priests) haven’t come to same conclusion?
I don’t feel a pressing need to be non-standard: One-boxing wins, two-boxing loses—that’s all one needs to know for the purpose of choosing between them.
Sure, but I gather there are other things you can discuss in decision theory besides Newcomb’s problem, so it isn’t like the decision theorists need an artificial controversy about this to keep their jobs.
There are dissimilarities between decision theorists and (say) theologians, priests etc. Decision theorists are unlikely to have prior convictions about decision theory before starting to study it, unlike folks who discuss religion. The relevant domain expert in ‘Does God exist’ would likely be philosophers of religion, although there is a similar selection effect. However, for what it’s worth, I doubt atheist philosophers of religion would consider the LW case for atheism remotely creditable.