Re:What If Sugar Is Worse Than Just Empty Calories?
by scarface74 on Friday January 05, 2018 @05:57PM
(#16082525)
The negative consequences of X is all of the known issues with obesity and an increased risk of diabetes. The negative consequences of Y is you have to cut back on sugar.
The consequence of Y (a healthier life and a decreased risk of diabetes) is well worth the sacrifices of doing X.
The gains of doing X is not worth the consequences of not Y (all of the health consequences of being overweight)
Is there any scientific literature that says consuming a lot of sugar is healthy for you?
If you could bet $50 and have a 90% chance of getting $500 would you take it? Would not betting $50 and having a 10% chance of not losing the $50 be equivalent?
Yes I realize the odds are exaggerated in the example above.
The problem with Pascal's Wager in most applications, including this one, is the “if X does Y...” can trivially be flipped to “if not-X does Y...” or, in some cases, “if not-X does Z...” where Z has equally negative consequences to Y).
Mostly, the Pascal's Wager structure is a template for flimsy rationalizations of pre-existing preferences or beliefs.