I think this would be a good argument against Said Achmiz’s suggested response, but I feel the text doesn’t completely support it, e.g. the Epistemologist says “such schemes often go through two phases” and “many schemes like that start with a flawed person”, suggesting that such schemes are known to him.
Even setting aside such textual anomalies, why is this a good argument? As I noted in a sibling comment to yours, my response assumes that Ponzi schemes have never happened in this world, because otherwise we’d simply identify the Spokesperson’s plan as a Ponzi scheme! The reasoning that I described is only necessary because we can’t say “ah, a Ponzi scheme”!
Ah, I think there was a misunderstanding. I (and maybe also quetzal_rainbow?) thought that in the inverted world also no “apparently-very-lucrative deals” that turn out to be scams are known, whereas you made a distinction between those kind of deals and Ponzi schemes in particular.
I think my interpretation is more in the spirit of the inversion, otherwise the Epistemologist should really have answered as you suggested, and the whole premise of the discussion (people seem to have trouble understanding what the Spokesperson is doing) is broken.
If I was living in a world where there are zero observed apparently-very-lucrative deal” that turn out to be scams then I hope I would conclude that there is some supernatural Creator who is putting a thumb on the scale to be sure that cheaters never win and winners never cheat. So I would invest in Ponzi Pyramid Inc. I would not expect to be scammed, because this is a world where there are zero observed apparently-very-lucrative deals that turn out to be scams. I would aim to invest in a diversified portfolio of apparently-very-lucrative deals, for all the same reasons I have a diversified portfolio in this world.
In such a world the Epistemologist is promoting a world model that does not explain my observations and I would not take their investment advice, similarly to how in this world I ignore investment advice from people who believe that the economy is secretly controlled by lizard people.
If the premise is a world where nobody ever does any scams or tries to swindle anyone out of money, then it’s so far removed from our world that I don’t rightly know how to interpret any of the included commentary on human nature / psychology / etc. Lying for personal gain is one of those “human universals”, without which I wouldn’t even recognize the characters as anything resembling humans.
I think this would be a good argument against Said Achmiz’s suggested response, but I feel the text doesn’t completely support it, e.g. the Epistemologist says “such schemes often go through two phases” and “many schemes like that start with a flawed person”, suggesting that such schemes are known to him.
Even setting aside such textual anomalies, why is this a good argument? As I noted in a sibling comment to yours, my response assumes that Ponzi schemes have never happened in this world, because otherwise we’d simply identify the Spokesperson’s plan as a Ponzi scheme! The reasoning that I described is only necessary because we can’t say “ah, a Ponzi scheme”!
Ah, I think there was a misunderstanding. I (and maybe also quetzal_rainbow?) thought that in the inverted world also no “apparently-very-lucrative deals” that turn out to be scams are known, whereas you made a distinction between those kind of deals and Ponzi schemes in particular.
I think my interpretation is more in the spirit of the inversion, otherwise the Epistemologist should really have answered as you suggested, and the whole premise of the discussion (people seem to have trouble understanding what the Spokesperson is doing) is broken.
If I was living in a world where there are zero observed apparently-very-lucrative deal” that turn out to be scams then I hope I would conclude that there is some supernatural Creator who is putting a thumb on the scale to be sure that cheaters never win and winners never cheat. So I would invest in Ponzi Pyramid Inc. I would not expect to be scammed, because this is a world where there are zero observed apparently-very-lucrative deals that turn out to be scams. I would aim to invest in a diversified portfolio of apparently-very-lucrative deals, for all the same reasons I have a diversified portfolio in this world.
In such a world the Epistemologist is promoting a world model that does not explain my observations and I would not take their investment advice, similarly to how in this world I ignore investment advice from people who believe that the economy is secretly controlled by lizard people.
If the premise is a world where nobody ever does any scams or tries to swindle anyone out of money, then it’s so far removed from our world that I don’t rightly know how to interpret any of the included commentary on human nature / psychology / etc. Lying for personal gain is one of those “human universals”, without which I wouldn’t even recognize the characters as anything resembling humans.