The argument by majority fallacy means arguing that something is true because many people believe it. In the example of the headaches, the argument was that it was likely true because it is true for most people.
What you would want your doctor to do is take the action that maximizes your expected utility, E[U(action)]. Let’s simplify a bit, and say that action can be either “do nothing” or “find cause”. Then the utilities could be something like:
P(not sick) = 0.99 (most people have nothing to worry about)
U(not sick, do nothing) = 0
U(not sick, find cure) = -1 (unnecessary tests, drugs, worry)
U(sick, do nothing) = -10 (possibly more headaches, or something worse)
U(sick, find cure) = -1 (still need tests, drugs, etc.)
So with these numbers I just made up, it is better for the doctor to tell you that there is likely nothing to worry about. And you can be pretty sure that in real life, people have done this calculation. Of course in real life there are many more possible actions, such as waiting for a week to see if the headaches go away, which they will likely do if there was nothing wrong. And that is what a doctor will actually tell you to do.
The doctor believed that the girl didn’t have any serious disease because most people who have headaches do not. How exactly is that not an appeal to majority?
If the doctor’s hypothesis anticipates that the girl is healthy in spite of having headaches, then the easiest way to falsify it is to ask what sign or symptom would indicate a life-threatening disease. Would you want your doctor to wait a week or so to test his hypothesis, if you had headaches that could be caused by a brain tumor?
But then again, they don’t teach falsification in med school.
iI would be an appeal to majority if and only if he was appealing to the fact that most people thought she didn’t have a serious disease. Instead, he was just appealing to base rates, which is totally reasonable.
The argument by majority fallacy means arguing that something is true because many people believe it. In the example of the headaches, the argument was that it was likely true because it is true for most people.
What you would want your doctor to do is take the action that maximizes your expected utility,
E[U(action)]. Let’s simplify a bit, and say that action can be either “do nothing” or “find cause”. Then the utilities could be something like:Then:
So with these numbers I just made up, it is better for the doctor to tell you that there is likely nothing to worry about. And you can be pretty sure that in real life, people have done this calculation. Of course in real life there are many more possible actions, such as waiting for a week to see if the headaches go away, which they will likely do if there was nothing wrong. And that is what a doctor will actually tell you to do.
The doctor believed that the girl didn’t have any serious disease because most people who have headaches do not. How exactly is that not an appeal to majority?
If the doctor’s hypothesis anticipates that the girl is healthy in spite of having headaches, then the easiest way to falsify it is to ask what sign or symptom would indicate a life-threatening disease. Would you want your doctor to wait a week or so to test his hypothesis, if you had headaches that could be caused by a brain tumor?
But then again, they don’t teach falsification in med school.
iI would be an appeal to majority if and only if he was appealing to the fact that most people thought she didn’t have a serious disease. Instead, he was just appealing to base rates, which is totally reasonable.