1 00:00:00,012 --> 00:00:05,602 Today we're going to be talking about two additional fallacies of relevance. 2 00:00:05,602 --> 00:00:09,709 One of them is what we'll call appeal to popular opinion. 3 00:00:09,709 --> 00:00:13,604 It's related to some versions to appeal to authority. 4 00:00:13,604 --> 00:00:18,951 The other is unlike all the other fallacies of relevance that we've looked 5 00:00:18,951 --> 00:00:23,207 at because Speaker: It's not a deductive fallacy, it's a practical fallacy. 6 00:00:23,207 --> 00:00:27,344 It's a fallacy in practical reasoning. In order to see what these two fallacies 7 00:00:27,344 --> 00:00:31,025 are, let's begin by looking at the following clip in which both of them 8 00:00:31,025 --> 00:00:33,498 occur. Speaker: You know if we don't catch that 9 00:00:33,498 --> 00:00:36,837 fish, we both know there ain't going to be any deep sea fishing. 10 00:00:36,837 --> 00:00:39,474 We'll have to stay on the dock like the old people. 11 00:00:39,474 --> 00:00:45,002 Hold it, hold it, what are you doing here? Speaker: What? Speaker: What about 12 00:00:45,002 --> 00:00:48,745 the other foot? There ain't no sock on it. 13 00:00:48,745 --> 00:00:54,374 Speaker: I'll get to it. Speaker: Don't you know that the whole 14 00:00:54,374 --> 00:00:59,785 world puts on a sock and a sock, and a shoe and a shoe? [LAUGH]. 15 00:01:01,323 --> 00:01:04,053 I like to take care of it one foot at a time. 16 00:01:04,053 --> 00:01:07,680 [LAUGH]. Speaker: That's the dumbest thing I ever 17 00:01:07,680 --> 00:01:11,706 heard in my life. [LAUGH] Speaker: It's just as quick my 18 00:01:11,706 --> 00:01:14,791 way. Speaker: Wait a minute, that aint the 19 00:01:14,791 --> 00:01:17,582 point. You see what I'm talk, don't keep doing 20 00:01:17,582 --> 00:01:18,553 it. Listen to me. 21 00:01:18,553 --> 00:01:24,260 [LAUGH] Suppose there's a fire in the house and you gotta run for your life. 22 00:01:24,260 --> 00:01:28,419 [LAUGH] Your way, all you got on is one shoe and a sock. 23 00:01:28,419 --> 00:01:33,372 [LAUGH] My way, you got on a sock and a sock. You see, they're even. 24 00:01:33,372 --> 00:01:41,977 [LAUGH] Suppose it's raining or snowing outside, your way with a sock on each 25 00:01:41,977 --> 00:01:48,777 foot, my feet would get wet. My way with a sock and a shoe on one 26 00:01:48,777 --> 00:01:58,068 foot, I could hop around and stay dry. Speaker: I think you've been hopping 27 00:01:58,068 --> 00:02:00,347 around on your head. Speaker: [LAUGH]. 28 00:02:00,347 --> 00:02:03,696 Speaker: Wait, wait and, listen to me. Speaker: [LAUGH]. 29 00:02:03,696 --> 00:02:06,831 Speaker: Suppose then the other socks got a hole in it. 30 00:02:06,831 --> 00:02:10,092 Speaker: [LAUGH]. Speaker: It doesn't have a hole in it. 31 00:02:10,092 --> 00:02:12,673 Speaker: I said suppose that it's got a hole. 32 00:02:12,673 --> 00:02:17,193 Speaker: Alright suppose it has a hole. Speaker: Alright it's got a hole in it, 33 00:02:17,193 --> 00:02:21,282 so Speaker:You ain't got another matching pair, so what are you going to do? Your 34 00:02:21,282 --> 00:02:25,247 way, you gotta take off a whole shoe and a sock [LAUGH] My way, all you gotta do 35 00:02:25,247 --> 00:02:29,412 is take off one sock [LAUGH] Speaker: All right, if it'll make you happy I'll start 36 00:02:29,412 --> 00:02:32,022 all over again. Speaker: No, no, no [LAUGH] You're 37 00:02:32,022 --> 00:02:35,671 halfway through Oh, gee get on with it, we're in a hurry. 38 00:02:35,671 --> 00:02:39,975 [LAUGH] You can start doing it the right way tomorrow morning. 39 00:02:39,975 --> 00:02:45,407 Speaker: Older American students might recognize the clip that we just saw as a 40 00:02:45,407 --> 00:02:50,529 clip from the TV sitcom, All in the Family, which ran in the United States in 41 00:02:50,529 --> 00:02:54,144 the 1970s. In it, the older character with white 42 00:02:54,144 --> 00:02:59,849 hair is named Archie, and the younger character with brown hair and a mustache 43 00:02:59,849 --> 00:03:03,864 is named Michael. In the clip we just saw, Archie gives 44 00:03:03,864 --> 00:03:08,157 Michael 3 arguments, and each time Archie gives Michael an 45 00:03:08,157 --> 00:03:13,627 argument, that argument commits a fallacy of relevance and Michael attempts to 46 00:03:13,627 --> 00:03:18,527 rebut or respond to the argument. Let's consider the first argument that 47 00:03:18,527 --> 00:03:22,552 Archie gives Michael. When Archie sees Michael putting on a 48 00:03:22,552 --> 00:03:27,752 sock and a shoe and then proceeding to put on another sock, Archie says Don't 49 00:03:27,752 --> 00:03:33,218 you know that the whole world puts on a sock in a sock and a shoe in a shoe? The 50 00:03:33,218 --> 00:03:38,933 implication being, that since the whole world puts on a sock in a sock and a shoe 51 00:03:38,933 --> 00:03:44,168 in a shoe, Michael should also. So, Archie is implicitly giving Michael 52 00:03:44,168 --> 00:03:49,513 the following argument. Premise, the whole world puts on a sock 53 00:03:49,513 --> 00:03:55,697 and a sock and a shoe and a shoe. So conclusion, you ought to put on a sock 54 00:03:55,697 --> 00:04:02,223 and a sock and a shoe and a shoe, and since you're not doing that, you're doing 55 00:04:02,223 --> 00:04:06,172 it wrong. That's the first argument that Archie 56 00:04:06,172 --> 00:04:10,669 gives Michael. Now notice this argument is guilty of a 57 00:04:10,669 --> 00:04:15,684 fallacy of relevance that's very similar to the fallacy committed by some versions 58 00:04:15,684 --> 00:04:19,543 of appeal to authority. Even if it's true, and let's grant for a 59 00:04:19,543 --> 00:04:23,879 moment that it is true that the whole world puts on a sock and a sock and a 60 00:04:23,879 --> 00:04:27,619 shoe and a shoe. That doesn't mean that you ought to do it 61 00:04:27,619 --> 00:04:31,348 that way as well. Now maybe there's a good reason why the 62 00:04:31,348 --> 00:04:36,560 whole world puts on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe, but if there is a good 63 00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:41,648 reason why the whole world puts on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe, then 64 00:04:41,648 --> 00:04:46,785 that good reason is the good reason why you ought to put on a sock and a sock and 65 00:04:46,785 --> 00:04:50,921 a shoe and a shoe. In other words, it's not that the whole 66 00:04:50,921 --> 00:04:55,939 world puts on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe, that explains why you 67 00:04:55,939 --> 00:04:59,496 want to put on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe. 68 00:04:59,496 --> 00:05:04,720 Rather, if there's a good reason why other people put on a sock and a sock and 69 00:05:04,720 --> 00:05:09,917 a shoe and a shoe, then that very same reason is the reason for you to put on a 70 00:05:09,917 --> 00:05:17,525 sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe. So, this argument right here is no good 71 00:05:17,525 --> 00:05:27,414 even if its conclusion is true, because there's some good reason for the premise 72 00:05:27,414 --> 00:05:34,517 being true. This is an example of appeal to popular 73 00:05:34,517 --> 00:05:46,852 opinion, or we can say popular practice. Sometimes popular practice is a good 74 00:05:46,852 --> 00:05:53,247 guide to what we ought to do. But sometimes it isn't. 75 00:05:53,247 --> 00:05:59,429 So, is popular practice in this case, a good guy, to what we ought to do? Only if 76 00:05:59,429 --> 00:06:05,436 there's a reason why it's the popular practice only if there's a good reason 77 00:06:05,436 --> 00:06:10,072 why everyone puts on a sock, and a sock and a shoe in a shoe. 78 00:06:10,072 --> 00:06:15,898 Michael obviously doesn't think there's a good reason for everyone to put on a sock 79 00:06:15,898 --> 00:06:20,797 and a sock and a shoe and a shoe. So, the fact that the whole world does 80 00:06:20,797 --> 00:06:26,457 so, assuming it is a fact, is irrelevant to him, and he says he likes to take care 81 00:06:26,457 --> 00:06:30,861 of one foot at a time. So, simply because everyone else does it 82 00:06:30,861 --> 00:06:36,010 differently He thinks, there's no reason why he should do it the way they do. 83 00:06:36,010 --> 00:06:40,999 He's happy to take care of one foot at a time, and until Archie can give him a 84 00:06:40,999 --> 00:06:46,036 good reason for doing what the whole rest of the world does, Michael's going to 85 00:06:46,036 --> 00:06:48,531 take care of one foot at a time. Okay. 86 00:06:48,531 --> 00:06:53,074 Now, let's consider whether Archie can give him a different reason. 87 00:06:53,074 --> 00:06:57,015 A good reason. for putting on a sock and a sock and a 88 00:06:57,015 --> 00:07:00,969 shoe and a shoe. Next, Archie tries to give Michael 89 00:07:00,969 --> 00:07:07,037 another argument for why he should put on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe. 90 00:07:07,037 --> 00:07:13,266 Archie's next argument goes like this. Well, suppose you have to leave the house 91 00:07:13,266 --> 00:07:19,258 halfway into putting on your footwear You don't get to put on all your footwear, 92 00:07:19,258 --> 00:07:23,899 you have to leave halfway. Let's say there's a fire and you have to 93 00:07:23,899 --> 00:07:28,170 run out of the house. Now if you put on both your socks first. 94 00:07:28,170 --> 00:07:33,202 In other words if you're putting on a sock and a sock and then a shoe and a 95 00:07:33,202 --> 00:07:36,752 shoe, then when you have to rush out of the house. 96 00:07:36,752 --> 00:07:41,470 Half way through putting on your footwear, your feet won't be even. 97 00:07:41,470 --> 00:07:46,600 You'll have one sock on each foot. But, if you would have been putting on a 98 00:07:46,600 --> 00:07:51,961 sock and a shoe, and a sock and a shoe, then when you have to rush out the house 99 00:07:51,961 --> 00:07:56,872 halfway through putting on your footwear, your feet will not be even. 100 00:07:56,872 --> 00:08:02,310 You'll have a sock and a shoe on one foot and the other foot will be bare. 101 00:08:02,310 --> 00:08:06,161 Now, i'ts better for your feet to be even than not. 102 00:08:06,161 --> 00:08:11,019 Archie doesn't explicitly say that, but clearly he implies it. 103 00:08:11,019 --> 00:08:16,990 Since it's better for your feet to be even than not, It's better for you to put 104 00:08:16,990 --> 00:08:23,210 on both your socks first, in other words, it's better for you to put on a sock and 105 00:08:23,210 --> 00:08:28,261 a sock and a shoe and a shoe. Better to do that than to put on a sock 106 00:08:28,261 --> 00:08:33,727 and a shoe and a sock and a shoe the way Michael's doing it in the video. 107 00:08:33,727 --> 00:08:38,352 So, is this a good argument for why it's better to put on. 108 00:08:38,352 --> 00:08:42,287 A sock in a sock, and a shoe in a shoe? No it's not. 109 00:08:42,287 --> 00:08:48,512 And what Michael says in response to Archie, tells us something about why this 110 00:08:48,512 --> 00:08:52,912 is not a good argument. See the reason this is not a good 111 00:08:52,912 --> 00:08:59,225 argument is because it starts off by supposing a scenario that's very unlikely 112 00:08:59,225 --> 00:09:02,690 to happen. It's very unlikely that halfway into 113 00:09:02,690 --> 00:09:08,355 putting on your footwear, you'll have to evacuate the house because of a fire. 114 00:09:08,355 --> 00:09:14,132 Now, of course sometimes it's good for us to take precautions against scenarios 115 00:09:14,132 --> 00:09:18,683 that are very unlikely. For instance, you might buy health 116 00:09:18,683 --> 00:09:24,282 insurance to pay for an, any expenses that you incur in case of some 117 00:09:24,282 --> 00:09:28,589 catastrophic illness, or flood insurance, to pay for the 118 00:09:28,589 --> 00:09:33,982 damages that'll occur to your house in case of some catastrophic flood. 119 00:09:33,982 --> 00:09:39,092 Even though it's unlikely that you'll become catastrophically sick, or you'll, 120 00:09:39,092 --> 00:09:42,937 your house will undergo some catastrophic flooding. 121 00:09:42,937 --> 00:09:48,228 Still, the reason it makes sense for us to take precautions against those 122 00:09:48,228 --> 00:09:53,982 scenarios is that, even though those scenarios are unlikely, if they were to 123 00:09:53,982 --> 00:09:59,877 happen, the consequences of not taking precautions would be really, really dire. 124 00:09:59,877 --> 00:10:05,632 Right, getting catastrophically sick without having any means to pay for your. 125 00:10:05,632 --> 00:10:10,312 Treatment would be a terrible thing and having your house destroyed without any 126 00:10:10,312 --> 00:10:14,132 means to recover the loss of it would, again be a terrible thing. 127 00:10:14,132 --> 00:10:18,537 So even though those scenarios are unlikely, it still makes sense for us to 128 00:10:18,537 --> 00:10:23,347 take precautions against their happening because if they did happen that would be 129 00:10:23,347 --> 00:10:26,529 terrible. But how terrible would it be for your 130 00:10:26,529 --> 00:10:31,140 feet to not be even, for you to have a sock and shoe and, on 131 00:10:31,140 --> 00:10:36,024 one foot, and the other foot bare? Well, it wouldn't be so bad. 132 00:10:36,024 --> 00:10:40,096 Certainly not as bad as your housing burning down. 133 00:10:40,096 --> 00:10:45,542 So, what Archie is doing is he's appealing to a scenario that's very 134 00:10:45,542 --> 00:10:50,161 unlikely to happen, and then he's showing that if you put on 135 00:10:50,161 --> 00:10:55,663 a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe, the costs that you would incur in that 136 00:10:55,663 --> 00:10:59,981 scenario, while they exist, are not all that substantial. 137 00:10:59,981 --> 00:11:04,122 The costs would just be that your feet would not be even. 138 00:11:04,122 --> 00:11:09,045 So Archie is trying to argue that it's better to put on both your socks 1st, by 139 00:11:09,045 --> 00:11:13,868 appeal to a scenario that's 1st very unlikely to happen and secondly even if 140 00:11:13,868 --> 00:11:18,628 it did happen the costs to you of putting on a sock and a shoe and a sock and a 141 00:11:18,628 --> 00:11:22,695 shoe wouldn't be all that great. So that's why this is not a good 142 00:11:22,695 --> 00:11:25,917 argument. And what Michael does in response to 143 00:11:25,917 --> 00:11:31,030 Archie's argument, is to show that a perfectly analogous argument could be 144 00:11:31,030 --> 00:11:36,369 given in favor of the opposite policy of putting on a sock and a shoe, and a sock 145 00:11:36,369 --> 00:11:40,114 and a shoe. Michael says, well look, suppose, suppose 146 00:11:40,114 --> 00:11:45,682 you're right Archie, that you do need to evacuate your house half way into putting 147 00:11:45,682 --> 00:11:49,010 your footwear on. But suppose also that it's raining 148 00:11:49,010 --> 00:11:51,467 outside. Might as well be raining outside. 149 00:11:51,467 --> 00:11:55,946 That's, that's not significantly less likely than your having to evacuate when 150 00:11:55,946 --> 00:11:59,693 it's not raining outside. So suppose it's raining outside [SOUND] 151 00:11:59,693 --> 00:12:03,974 and you have to evacuate your house [SOUND] halfway into putting on your 152 00:12:03,974 --> 00:12:07,242 footwear. Well, if you ave a sock in a shoe on one 153 00:12:07,242 --> 00:12:10,177 foot, then you can hop around and stay dry. 154 00:12:10,177 --> 00:12:15,566 But if you only have a sock and a sock on each foot, then you're going to get wet. 155 00:12:15,566 --> 00:12:20,957 Once again, Michael shows that this same kind of argument appeal to an unlikely 156 00:12:20,957 --> 00:12:25,287 scenario, and appeal to some. Miniscule cost associated with the 157 00:12:25,287 --> 00:12:29,659 obtaining of that scenario. That very same argument could be used to 158 00:12:29,659 --> 00:12:34,582 favor his way of putting on his socks and shoes as it can be used to favor R.G.s 159 00:12:34,582 --> 00:12:39,480 way of putting on his socks and shoes, right? So,since that very same kind of 160 00:12:39,480 --> 00:12:42,307 argument can be used for either conclusion. 161 00:12:42,307 --> 00:12:45,727 It's not a very compelling argument. Either way. 162 00:12:45,727 --> 00:12:51,646 Appealing to an unlikely scenario which if it were to obtain would carry with it 163 00:12:51,646 --> 00:12:57,640 some minuscule cost, is not a way to show that one course of action is better than 164 00:12:57,640 --> 00:13:02,644 another course of action. In this third argument, Archie corrects 165 00:13:02,644 --> 00:13:07,169 the defects that I just pointed out, in the second argument. 166 00:13:07,169 --> 00:13:12,682 First he appeals to a scenario. That's much more likely to occur than the 167 00:13:12,682 --> 00:13:18,447 scenario of your having to evacuate the house immediately, halfway into putting 168 00:13:18,447 --> 00:13:22,692 on your footwear. And secondly, he appeals to a cost that's 169 00:13:22,692 --> 00:13:27,522 a little more substantial than the cost of your feet not being even. 170 00:13:27,522 --> 00:13:31,812 Let me explain what I mean. Archie asks Michael to suppose. 171 00:13:31,812 --> 00:13:39,127 That Michael finds a hole in his second sock, as he's putting his second sock on 172 00:13:39,127 --> 00:13:43,854 his foot. Now, that's not an impossible scenario. 173 00:13:43,854 --> 00:13:50,942 It's probably, more likely to occur than having to evacuate the house. 174 00:13:50,942 --> 00:13:55,612 Half way into putting on your footwear. But suppose you find a hole in your 175 00:13:55,612 --> 00:13:58,732 second sock while you're putting it on your foot. 176 00:13:58,732 --> 00:14:03,737 Well, if you were putting on a sock and a sock and then a shoe and a shoe, finding 177 00:14:03,737 --> 00:14:06,935 a hole in your second sock Would be easy to correct. 178 00:14:06,935 --> 00:14:10,901 You'd just take off your socks. Put on another pair of socks without a 179 00:14:10,901 --> 00:14:13,255 hole in them. And then put on your shoes. 180 00:14:13,255 --> 00:14:17,699 But, if you were doing things Michael's way, and putting on a sock and a shoe, 181 00:14:17,699 --> 00:14:21,060 and a sock and a shoe. Then, you'd have to take off the shoe 182 00:14:21,060 --> 00:14:25,630 that you already put on your first foot. If you found a hole in the sock that's on 183 00:14:25,630 --> 00:14:29,950 your second foot. Since it's easier to remove socks than it 184 00:14:29,950 --> 00:14:36,117 is to remove shoes, let's suppose, Archie concludes it's better to put on a sock 185 00:14:36,117 --> 00:14:42,036 and a sock and a shoe and a shoe than to do it Michael's way and put on a sock and 186 00:14:42,036 --> 00:14:46,873 a shoe and a sock and a shoe. And again the reason it's better is 187 00:14:46,873 --> 00:14:53,242 because In this scenario, where you find a hole in your second sock, it's easier 188 00:14:53,242 --> 00:14:58,682 to fix it if you would put your socks on before putting your shoes on. 189 00:14:58,682 --> 00:15:04,277 So it's easier to fix a problem that crops up in this scenario if you're 190 00:15:04,277 --> 00:15:10,087 putting on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe than it is to fix that same 191 00:15:10,087 --> 00:15:14,443 problem If you are putting on a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe. 192 00:15:14,443 --> 00:15:19,288 Now this argument appeals to a scenario that is a lot more likely to happen, I'm 193 00:15:19,288 --> 00:15:24,033 supposing than the the scenario of having to evacuate your house halfway into 194 00:15:24,033 --> 00:15:28,581 putting on your footwear and it also appeals to a cost that is perhaps a bit 195 00:15:28,581 --> 00:15:33,792 more substantial, a bit more obvious. Than the cost of having your feet, 196 00:15:33,792 --> 00:15:40,492 unbalanced having your feet not be even. But, while Michael accepts this argument, 197 00:15:40,492 --> 00:15:47,257 Michael doesn't rebut this argument, it's not clear how compelling the argument is. 198 00:15:47,257 --> 00:15:54,069 How would we judge the compellingness of this argument? How can we tell If this is 199 00:15:54,069 --> 00:16:01,177 a good argument or not. [SOUND] Well, here's what we have to do. 200 00:16:01,177 --> 00:16:08,780 [SOUND] Think back to Walter's discussion of practical reasoning. 201 00:16:08,780 --> 00:16:17,432 [SOUND] Let's say you're deciding between two different courses of action. 202 00:16:17,432 --> 00:16:25,595 [SOUND]. One course of action is putting on socks 203 00:16:25,595 --> 00:16:35,022 first and the other course of action is one foot at a time. 204 00:16:35,022 --> 00:16:42,738 [SOUND] So those are your two choices. Are you going to put on your socks first 205 00:16:42,738 --> 00:16:48,609 and then your shoes, or are you going to put on your footwear 206 00:16:48,609 --> 00:16:54,008 one foot at a time? Well, these courses of action are 207 00:16:54,008 --> 00:17:00,471 going to have different outcomes, depending on The way the world is, right? 208 00:17:00,471 --> 00:17:05,180 There are different ways the world could begin, depending on the way the world is. 209 00:17:05,180 --> 00:17:08,542 These courses of action will turn out differently for you. 210 00:17:08,542 --> 00:17:12,052 So suppose for instance, you have to evacuate your house. 211 00:17:12,052 --> 00:17:17,616 Halfway into putting on your footwear. That's one possible way the world could 212 00:17:17,616 --> 00:17:23,043 be, and under that scenario you'd be a little bit worse off going one foot at a 213 00:17:23,043 --> 00:17:28,312 time, then you would with socks first. At least if it's true that it's a bad 214 00:17:28,312 --> 00:17:33,768 thing to have your feet be unbalanced. But there are many other ways the world 215 00:17:33,768 --> 00:17:37,767 could be. Now, in order to figure out which of 216 00:17:37,767 --> 00:17:44,467 these two policies is the better one, which of these two courses of action is 217 00:17:44,467 --> 00:17:51,317 the beter one, what we need to do is to consider all the different ways that the 218 00:17:51,317 --> 00:17:56,786 world could be. And then, consider what the costs and 219 00:17:56,786 --> 00:18:04,030 benefits of these policies would be under each of those scenarios. 220 00:18:04,030 --> 00:18:12,452 So let's say that we have five possible scenarios, scenario 1 One two three four 221 00:18:12,452 --> 00:18:16,806 five. And under scenario one, your'e a little 222 00:18:16,806 --> 00:18:23,229 better off putting on your socks first than going one foot at a tlme. 223 00:18:23,229 --> 00:18:30,674 Alright, so let's say putting on your socks first, that's a really good thing, 224 00:18:30,674 --> 00:18:36,748 wheras going one foot at a time. It's okay, but not great. 225 00:18:36,748 --> 00:18:44,958 'Kay, under scenario two let's say putting on your socks first turns out 226 00:18:44,958 --> 00:18:51,571 really badly. But putting on your footware one foot at 227 00:18:51,571 --> 00:18:56,402 a time again turns out okay. And so on. 228 00:18:56,402 --> 00:19:09,222 Now, suppose we discovered that no matter what happens, putting your footwear on 1 229 00:19:09,222 --> 00:19:16,812 foot at a time turns out Okay, whereas putting on your socks 1st turns out 230 00:19:16,812 --> 00:19:22,692 really well under some scenarios but really badly under other scenarios. 231 00:19:22,692 --> 00:19:29,237 Then what should we do? It depends and in particular it depends on how likely these 232 00:19:29,237 --> 00:19:34,892 different scenarios are to a curve, how probable they are to a curve. 233 00:19:34,892 --> 00:19:41,025 If scenario 1 under which putting on your socks 1st turns out really well, if 234 00:19:41,025 --> 00:19:46,860 scenario 1 is really likely to occur, let's say there's a 90% chance that 235 00:19:46,860 --> 00:19:53,109 scenario 1 will occur and scenario 1 it turns out really well if you put on your 236 00:19:53,109 --> 00:19:56,982 socks 1st. But not so well if you put on your foot 237 00:19:56,982 --> 00:20:02,138 wear one foot at a time. Well then that's a pretty powerful reason 238 00:20:02,138 --> 00:20:05,806 to put on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe. 239 00:20:05,806 --> 00:20:11,952 On the other hand, if, under one of these scenarios, let's say putting on your 240 00:20:11,952 --> 00:20:19,902 socks first, results In your death, then that's a really powerful reason not to 241 00:20:19,902 --> 00:20:26,467 put on your socks first. Because if putting on your socks first 242 00:20:26,467 --> 00:20:34,502 could even with a 1% chance result in your death, it's probably not worth it. 243 00:20:34,502 --> 00:20:39,802 Probably better to put on your footwear on one foot at a time. 244 00:20:39,802 --> 00:20:46,414 So, if we're trying to figure out if Archie's third argument, compelling or 245 00:20:46,414 --> 00:20:53,151 not, what we need to figure out is this. How likely is it, that you're going to 246 00:20:53,151 --> 00:20:59,709 find a hole in your second sock? And. If you do find a hole in your second 247 00:20:59,709 --> 00:21:06,453 sock, how much worse is it to have to remove your shoe versus removing your 248 00:21:06,453 --> 00:21:10,734 socks. And finally what are the other possible 249 00:21:10,734 --> 00:21:15,110 outcomes Of putting on a sock and a sock, and a shoe and a shoe. 250 00:21:15,110 --> 00:21:18,815 Versus putting on a sock and a shoe, and sock and a shoe. 251 00:21:18,815 --> 00:21:22,099 We have to consider all of the possible outcomes. 252 00:21:22,099 --> 00:21:26,914 Because, if there's some outcome that has even a 1% chance of happening. 253 00:21:26,914 --> 00:21:32,026 Where the consequences of putting on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe are 254 00:21:32,026 --> 00:21:35,485 catastrophic, like let's say you die, 255 00:21:36,737 --> 00:21:42,005 then that's a pretty good reason in favor of doing things the other way. 256 00:21:43,257 --> 00:21:49,147 Because the advantages to the gain from putting on a sock in a sock and a shoe in 257 00:21:49,147 --> 00:21:55,725 a shoe probably are not great enough to compensate for the risk of death, that 258 00:21:55,725 --> 00:22:00,379 you would undertake if this scenario was even 1% likely.