Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Then I am stumped. I see no way (shy of cheating, which would ruin this as a puzzle of critical thinking and reduces it to a mere riddle, and riddles have always mightily annoyed me by their sly ways of cheating language) that the outcomes could have been fixed. Please tell me if this is indeed a logic puzzle and not a riddle ... I was going on that basic premise since I have not once seen Heisenberg stoop to sophistry.
But if it is a logic puzzle, i am hung on what appears to be an internal contradiction.
I could use the "no chance it was chance" as my starting point, decide that means "the whole thing was rigged", which would moot the question of the sender's psychic prowess. But that would be ugly and inelegant and unsatisfying, an answer worthy of a riddle but not a puzzle, which isn't Heis' way. So I reject that. cn
I did call this thread 'logic puzzles' for about 10 seconds and changed it, because I realized it involved critical thinking. I apologize if you saw the original title and was lead astray.
I suppose I would have to call it a riddle that stresses critical thinking principals. It is not a logic puzzle, as in your were supplied all the information and need only to reason your way through. You must make assumptions, which is where critical thinking comes in. I was actually going to use this as an example for the Chief, but realized it would be wasted on him. I thought it would be fun for us instead, and we might learn something. Just as when I did the 'name that logical fallacy" thread, it teaches me as much as anyone else.
Fist let me explain how it was done, then I will explain how I think it relates to critical thinking.
I choose only situations where there is a 50/50 outcome. In sports, a team either wins or it doesn't. Stocks either rise or fall. I choose races with no more than 6 contestants and which give prizes for 1st 2nd and 3rd place, so the chance of winning a prize is still 50/50. (unrealistic to find races which award half the contestants perhaps) I wait till the apprentice is down to 2 people, choose elections with only two candidates, ect. Knowing my outcome will be either-or with each prediction, I start out with millions of letters and send half the either and half the or. After the event I predicted, I drop the half that missed from my mailing list, and send the next prediction to only the hits. I do this for 6 months until 1 person remains on the list, and then I hit them with my car.
The first thing I think this suggests is that we should always search for and consider alternate explanations. This seems elementary to most of us, but obviously not to all who participate here. It is in fact a basic principal of critical thinking, not to favor any explanation at the total exclusion of others, or because we lack of a better one. We must always consider that the information we have is limited, and that there could be more to the picture than what has been supplied. This is especially true when we seem to reach a logical impasse or extreme improbability, such as the one I attempted to present here.
This also demonstrates the usefulness of parsimony and Occam's razor. People often confuse Occam's razor as saying the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Here, the explanation of psychic seems to be much less complex than the convoluted explanation I have provided. Yet, proper application of the razor favors the convoluted in this case. That is because Occam's Razor is about parsimony, and not simplicity. It's true that each new assumption offers room for error, but what is more important is the size of the assumption. Although my explanation is complicated, it's still working within the known laws of the universe. The psychic route may offer less assumptions, but the ones it does offer are huge paradigm breaking leaps.
So my intention was not to fool or deceive, it was to demonstrate and inform. Perhaps riddles aren't the best vehicle for what I wanted.