Of course, by that reasoning, I should go invest in multi million dollar real estate, because I have a one in 200 million chance of winning the lottery. Neither conclusion makes the slightest bit of sense. The odds are radically small. I stated as much. Consequently, any rational betting man would bet in favor of the likely odds. Since I acknowledge the odds as being radically small, how would that equate with me thinking the world is going to end? You must also conclude I don't drive cars because 50,000 people die in accidents a year in the US. That would be an equally fallacious conclusion.
But the odds being radically small do not negate the consideration that one must weigh the meaning of the radically unlikely conclusion. It is comparable to playing Russian roulette with a ten billion barreled gun, only the gun is big enough to destroy the Earth. Does the benefit outweigh the risk? That is a perfectly reasonable question. It is not at all reasonable to berate someone for asking that question. Instead, one should make the argument either that, indeed, it is worth the risk to do this, or that, indeed it is not. Ignoring that question entirely in favor of making nonsensical straw men attacks is hardly a sign of your superior reasoning on the subject.
no subject
But the odds being radically small do not negate the consideration that one must weigh the meaning of the radically unlikely conclusion. It is comparable to playing Russian roulette with a ten billion barreled gun, only the gun is big enough to destroy the Earth. Does the benefit outweigh the risk? That is a perfectly reasonable question. It is not at all reasonable to berate someone for asking that question. Instead, one should make the argument either that, indeed, it is worth the risk to do this, or that, indeed it is not. Ignoring that question entirely in favor of making nonsensical straw men attacks is hardly a sign of your superior reasoning on the subject.