indeed. It even seems that it is an inconsistent heuristic. The existence of an omnipotent God sounds only finitely absurd. But once you grant the existence of said God, any event, no matter how absurd, becomes plausible (for example, a talking snake). Just add the explanation “god wanted it to happen, so it happened”.
But “There exists a talking snake” is strictly more likely to be true than “There exists a talking snake, and it was created by The God Yahweh”.
FTW conjunction fallacy …
The absurdity heuristic is inconsistent because you can make a proposition sound less absurd by modifying it to be less likely to be true, thus making it more absurd.
I don’t see the inconsistency. You obtain the conjunction fallacy only if omnipotent God is less absurd than talking snake. I think that such position is absurd.
“The absurdity heuristic doesn’t work very well.”
indeed. It even seems that it is an inconsistent heuristic. The existence of an omnipotent God sounds only finitely absurd. But once you grant the existence of said God, any event, no matter how absurd, becomes plausible (for example, a talking snake). Just add the explanation “god wanted it to happen, so it happened”.
But “There exists a talking snake” is strictly more likely to be true than “There exists a talking snake, and it was created by The God Yahweh”.
FTW conjunction fallacy …
The absurdity heuristic is inconsistent because you can make a proposition sound less absurd by modifying it to be less likely to be true, thus making it more absurd.
I don’t see the inconsistency. You obtain the conjunction fallacy only if omnipotent God is less absurd than talking snake. I think that such position is absurd.