9/11 truthers should be proposing wagers on the discovery of robust evidence, etc.
There has been quite some robust evidence.
But, I’ll accept a wager. There is someone on LW who has openly bluffed regarding 9/11. This will be a simple issue to settle, all I have to do is to ask one simple question(specifically related to this bluff) to one person(edit: to the person who bluffed) and I wager that he won’t be able to give a convincing answer. Deal?
I will bet a $5 donation to SIAI that the person will be able to give a convincing answer, as judged by, say, Jack or JoshuaZ, provided that you give the person time to research 9/11 as necessary.
ETA: And provided that person is willing to spend the time answering.
There’s a slight problem there. Roland said that the individual in question was not Jack. It might be me. Also, I would not be at all surprised if Roland considers both Jack and myself to be people who are in the group with anti-Truther bias here.
Well, I’d accept anyone who was not a rabid Truther, because I don’t believe that Truthers will ever be convinced regardless of the evidence. But maybe Roland thinks anyone who isn’t a rabid Truther is too strongly biased.
I have an anti-Blueberry bias, and he is involved in the bet. If he will accept my adjudication regardless, then $5 for the SIAI and a chance to show off my mad adjudication skillz is worth the small amount of time I expect it would take to make the evaluation of whether the answer to “one simple question” is convincing. I don’t know who the answerer of this question would be, though, and if ey declines to participate the bet should be considered off.
Well, if I’m not the subject of the bet (or heck even if I am) I might be willing to take the bet under the same terms but I’d be curious who would be an acceptable judge for Roland.
Although I’m pretty sure that I would win this bet I have some issues, I really don’t want to expose anyone here and that’s what calling the Bluff would entail. So I’m not sure if I want to go on with this.
If that’s all that’s holding you back, you could send them a private message. But I don’t think you need to do even that; posting on a blog means accepting that people may publically rebut your arguments.
If you are right, then numerous people on this forum are likely to have been misinformed and would benefit from correction. If you are wrong, then you are unlikely to cause harm by naming the individual in question.
In addition, if you are thinking of me, I would like to be told so.
Alicorn, that sounds fair. Would you and the others agree on you being also a meta-adjudicator? In this case I would first expose my concerns to you in private and then we could decide if I should go public. What do you think?
I have to say, I would be pretty frustrated if, after all of this, the details of the bet weren’t public. Especially if this is going to be evidence for or against a LW “bias” against 9/11 truthers. And I see no reason why they shouldn’t be public. Especially, if you message the person in question and ask them if it is okay.
If that’s all that’s holding you back, you could send them a private message. But I don’t think you need to do even that; posting on a blog means accepting that people may publically rebut your arguments.
These terms are insanely vague and not even indicative of whether or not there is some conspiracy involving the 9/11 attacks. If you want to ask someone a question, fine. But I don’t really have strong beliefs about whether someone on LW has “bluffed”.
What probability would you assign to the claim “In the next 10 years documents will be leaked or released which implicate American government officials or businessmen as involved in the attacks. ”
Or: “By 2020 most Americans will believe American government officials were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.”
We can clarify terms later, I just want a sense of whether or not you think future revelations are likely enough for a bet to be worthwhile. If you think something will happen earlier, that would be even better.
ETA: Even if you think the probabilities are pretty low I’m willing to give you reasonable odds.
These terms are insanely vague and not even indicative of whether or not there is some conspiracy involving the 9/11 attacks.
Right. But it is some indication that there is a strong bias in LW regarding 9/11.
Btw, you don’t need to bet anything, all I need would be the necessary exposure here on LW so that said person(which is not you btw) could not omit an answer, therefore the bluff being exposed.
How does this even begin to hit Jack’s point? Jack hasn’t claimed that there might not be such bias on LW nor has anyone else. For that matter, it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a small bit of bias against 9/11 Truthers here. I think it is quite clear that there are a lot of biases operating here. And I can supply strong evidence for a major bias on demand. But that in no way says anything useful about what happened on 9/11 unless you think that the biases here are because Eliezer and Robin are somehow involved in covering up the big nasty conspiracy and have deliberately cultivated an anti- 9/11 Truther attitude to assist the conspiracy in its cover up.
Jack gave possible wagers. Another possible example would be something based on public opinion. Something like “By time T, the consensus view will be that the current accepted view of what happened on 9/11 is wrong.” That wording could be made more precise but the basic idea would be clear. One could use it with a specific data point also such as the presence of explosives in WTC7.
Right, thats why I gave a long time horizon and offered him odds. I mean if the conspiracy is that strong maybe we won’t feel like it is worthwhile to bet. But I could give him 50:1 odds or better depending on the details of the wager and still come out ahead. (ETA: We can’t figure it out whether or not a bet is possible until we exchange probabilities)
That’s hideously ill-defined. What do you mean by bluffed? And to whom does the answer need to be convincing? Moreover, even if someone here has “bluffed” (whatever that means in this context) how does that say anything about Jack’s point?
There has been quite some robust evidence.
But, I’ll accept a wager. There is someone on LW who has openly bluffed regarding 9/11. This will be a simple issue to settle, all I have to do is to ask one simple question(specifically related to this bluff) to one person(edit: to the person who bluffed) and I wager that he won’t be able to give a convincing answer. Deal?
I will bet a $5 donation to SIAI that the person will be able to give a convincing answer, as judged by, say, Jack or JoshuaZ, provided that you give the person time to research 9/11 as necessary.
ETA: And provided that person is willing to spend the time answering.
There’s a slight problem there. Roland said that the individual in question was not Jack. It might be me. Also, I would not be at all surprised if Roland considers both Jack and myself to be people who are in the group with anti-Truther bias here.
Well, I’d accept anyone who was not a rabid Truther, because I don’t believe that Truthers will ever be convinced regardless of the evidence. But maybe Roland thinks anyone who isn’t a rabid Truther is too strongly biased.
Alicorn would be a good choice, if she is still logged in.
Yeah, I was thinking of Alicorn, too.
I have an anti-Blueberry bias, and he is involved in the bet. If he will accept my adjudication regardless, then $5 for the SIAI and a chance to show off my mad adjudication skillz is worth the small amount of time I expect it would take to make the evaluation of whether the answer to “one simple question” is convincing. I don’t know who the answerer of this question would be, though, and if ey declines to participate the bet should be considered off.
Well, if I’m not the subject of the bet (or heck even if I am) I might be willing to take the bet under the same terms but I’d be curious who would be an acceptable judge for Roland.
Although I’m pretty sure that I would win this bet I have some issues, I really don’t want to expose anyone here and that’s what calling the Bluff would entail. So I’m not sure if I want to go on with this.
If that’s all that’s holding you back, you could send them a private message. But I don’t think you need to do even that; posting on a blog means accepting that people may publically rebut your arguments.
Everyone here is here ostensibly to have their false beliefs exposed. If they are deceiving people here that is even worse.
Roland, just to be sure, why don’t you instant message the person and see if they don’t mind?
If you are right, then numerous people on this forum are likely to have been misinformed and would benefit from correction. If you are wrong, then you are unlikely to cause harm by naming the individual in question.
In addition, if you are thinking of me, I would like to be told so.
If I’m the selected adjudicator I’m willing to do it in private and keep the details secret.
Alicorn, that sounds fair. Would you and the others agree on you being also a meta-adjudicator? In this case I would first expose my concerns to you in private and then we could decide if I should go public. What do you think?
I have to say, I would be pretty frustrated if, after all of this, the details of the bet weren’t public. Especially if this is going to be evidence for or against a LW “bias” against 9/11 truthers. And I see no reason why they shouldn’t be public. Especially, if you message the person in question and ask them if it is okay.
If Alicorn agrees to be a meta-adjudicator I will write her my concerns in private.
I reserve the right to unilaterally publicize if I consider it appropriate, but will field the concerns privately first if you like.
so… what happened?
I counseled letting the matter lie upon receiving further details. It’s not very interesting.
Darn… the build-up made it sound so intriguing :) ah well.
If that’s all that’s holding you back, you could send them a private message. But I don’t think you need to do even that; posting on a blog means accepting that people may publically rebut your arguments.
These terms are insanely vague and not even indicative of whether or not there is some conspiracy involving the 9/11 attacks. If you want to ask someone a question, fine. But I don’t really have strong beliefs about whether someone on LW has “bluffed”.
What probability would you assign to the claim “In the next 10 years documents will be leaked or released which implicate American government officials or businessmen as involved in the attacks. ”
Or: “By 2020 most Americans will believe American government officials were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.”
We can clarify terms later, I just want a sense of whether or not you think future revelations are likely enough for a bet to be worthwhile. If you think something will happen earlier, that would be even better.
ETA: Even if you think the probabilities are pretty low I’m willing to give you reasonable odds.
Right. But it is some indication that there is a strong bias in LW regarding 9/11.
Btw, you don’t need to bet anything, all I need would be the necessary exposure here on LW so that said person(which is not you btw) could not omit an answer, therefore the bluff being exposed.
How does this even begin to hit Jack’s point? Jack hasn’t claimed that there might not be such bias on LW nor has anyone else. For that matter, it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a small bit of bias against 9/11 Truthers here. I think it is quite clear that there are a lot of biases operating here. And I can supply strong evidence for a major bias on demand. But that in no way says anything useful about what happened on 9/11 unless you think that the biases here are because Eliezer and Robin are somehow involved in covering up the big nasty conspiracy and have deliberately cultivated an anti- 9/11 Truther attitude to assist the conspiracy in its cover up.
I’ll let Blueberry take this bet since he(?) wants it.
Does this mean you’re not interested in a wager regarding 9/11 itself though?
I don’t see any sensible way in formulating or adjudicating such a wager.
Jack gave possible wagers. Another possible example would be something based on public opinion. Something like “By time T, the consensus view will be that the current accepted view of what happened on 9/11 is wrong.” That wording could be made more precise but the basic idea would be clear. One could use it with a specific data point also such as the presence of explosives in WTC7.
Hows that? I gave two possibilities above. There are surely more events that you must think are more likely than I do, given your beliefs.
There may not be any such events that he thinks will happen in the near future if he thinks the conspiracy is powerful or competent enough.
Right, thats why I gave a long time horizon and offered him odds. I mean if the conspiracy is that strong maybe we won’t feel like it is worthwhile to bet. But I could give him 50:1 odds or better depending on the details of the wager and still come out ahead. (ETA: We can’t figure it out whether or not a bet is possible until we exchange probabilities)
That’s hideously ill-defined. What do you mean by bluffed? And to whom does the answer need to be convincing? Moreover, even if someone here has “bluffed” (whatever that means in this context) how does that say anything about Jack’s point?
By bluffed I mean: “A person said something that he/she cannot back up.”
That’s a good question. Who would adjudicate this?
For the other point read my answer here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/27e/but_somebody_would_have_noticed/1yu8