Suppose we want to make an event seem likely. If we use the above method but slightly over-estimated the sub-event probabilities and use a large number of sub-events, then the resulting final probability will inevitably be very large. Because people tend to find moderate-range probabilities reasonable, this would be a superficially compelling argument even if it results in a massive over-estimation of the final probability. I propose this is a kind of reverse multiple-stage fallacy.
I suggest that this post is an instance of this fallacy. I gestured at the issue in my response but didn’t have a name for it. A nonexhaustive list with at least 12 listed subevents of “is humanity evil”, each of which is “there’s some chance that this specific thing is humanity being evil”.
Except that I doubt that it is such an instance and not an instance of 12 subevents[1] of mankind already[2] making potential severe mistakes. For example, while most people here are unlikely to buy the problem of secularism, they understand that destruction of nature and/or neglect for future generations is likely a mistake.
Factory farming, wild animal suffering, neglect for foreigners and/or future generations, abortion, mass incarceration, declining birth rates, natural mass fetus death, animal slaughter, secularism leading to many people going to hell, destruction of nature, child-bearing. However, I believe that these subevents aren’t that independent.
For comparison, Daniel Kokotajlo’s recent quick take implies that such mistakes will be FAR more abundant once the realm of possibilities expands itself.
I suggest that this post is an instance of this fallacy. I gestured at the issue in my response but didn’t have a name for it. A nonexhaustive list with at least 12 listed subevents of “is humanity evil”, each of which is “there’s some chance that this specific thing is humanity being evil”.
Except that I doubt that it is such an instance and not an instance of 12 subevents[1] of mankind already[2] making potential severe mistakes. For example, while most people here are unlikely to buy the problem of secularism, they understand that destruction of nature and/or neglect for future generations is likely a mistake.
Factory farming, wild animal suffering, neglect for foreigners and/or future generations, abortion, mass incarceration, declining birth rates, natural mass fetus death, animal slaughter, secularism leading to many people going to hell, destruction of nature, child-bearing. However, I believe that these subevents aren’t that independent.
For comparison, Daniel Kokotajlo’s recent quick take implies that such mistakes will be FAR more abundant once the realm of possibilities expands itself.