Talk:Self-referencing doomsday argument rebuttal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscategorized

How this article was ever classified as a mathematics article is beyond my ken. So I'm stripping the "Probability theory" category tag out. I've read this article, and the associated Doomsday argument article, and neither of them really has anything to do with "probability" in a mathematical sense, because there is no empirical basis for the proposition "I'm among the first x% of humans who will ever be born". That is wild speculation, and not the basis for any kind of mathematical argument. One might as well ask "What are the odds of winning a card game that has not yet been invented and will never be described?", or "What is the probability of rolling 17 with an unknown number of dice, which may or may not have marks on their faces?" DavidCBryant 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime of scientific predictions

is there any quote for this? "One difference is that evidence exists for the average 'lifetime' of a scientific (falsifiable) prediction; there are libraries full of refuted, unrefuted, and forgotten papers published on mathematics."

there are lots of mathematical theories that have been refuted, but there is no recorded history of ALL mathematics being refuted. Isn't this analogous to certain populations being extinct as compared to the whole humanity?. Actually, why would diferent 'scientific' predictions be relevant to the probability of this one prediction being refuted, but extinction of animals different to humans isn't relevant for human extinction? (it could be argued that there is a bigger difference between any refuted scientific prediction and the doomsday argument and say.. the dodo bird and a human being) I can't really see any logical argument in this, seems arbritary. But i'd be happy if someone can explain it! 83.36.146.82 (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]