contact@onbelief.orgThe Unknown in Real and Philosophical Gambling
Our actions in life are often preceded by decisions that involve some degree of speculation. It is therefore important to consider the process of decision making in situations where insufficient or conflicting evidence exists to allow us to formulate a definitive belief
Weighting of Ideas
Consider the situation where there were 5 pieces of evidence only 3 of which supported the acceptance of the truth of a particular proposition. We might then award a value of 60% to the explanatory idea or predictions arising from the evidence. If 99 pieces of evidence out of 100 supported the idea we would then be more confident in saying that the idea has truth while leaving room for a smaller amount of doubt. We would then be using a strength of belief based on a weighting system related to the number of pieces of evidence. If a champion race horse were to have won its last 5 races compared to 1 out of 5 by a previous champion we might then have a weighing system for strength of belief if a race were to be held between the two horses next week. Even if only 2 pieces of evidence were considered we could also give them a differential weighting. The evolutionist would give a very low or zero weighting to creationist biblical claims and a very high weighting to observations of the fossil record. By contrast the creationist would do the opposite. In the example given above the position of horses in a horse race is also used to generate a 'weighting'. In the real world of handicap racing real physical weights are used in an attempt to even the probabilities of a win by all horses. The effect of weighting is then of particular interest to the gambler (see The Effect of Weight in Handicaps). Other weighting systems are of course adopted by the semi-rational gambler (see free horse racing systems).
Pascal's Wager
Perhaps the most famous 'philosophical gambling' of all time is Pascal's Wager concerning the existence of God. He more or less states that life is in fact a wager on the idea of God that you cannot avoid. Or to quote wikipedia, "it is better to take the chance of believing in a god that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does". There are problems in this situation however for philosophically 'religious gamblers'. How do they construct a posterior probability from the evidence available? How do they calculate an outcome probability? The only "true course" according to Pascal "is not to wager at all". Those who value the possibility of changing belief might disagree with Pascal that we are not of necessity already "embarked" on the wager. Happiness in life can involve changing 'the wager' as the observations and ideas present themselves. We are then of necessity obliged to consider the 'atheist wager' regardless of what others have taught us to believe. "If there is no God, you will have lost nothing". Again for the atheist calculating posterior and outcome probabilities seem equally problematic. Other strategies need to be adopted than that suggested by Pascal. [ For an examination Pascal's Wager in terms of decision theory go to the article at the IEP by Paul Saka of the University of Houston]
On the Nature of Belief
www.onbelief.org
Scotland, 12th October 2007 and thereafter
Copyright 2007 onwards
