How important are extremes?

[Neopergoss]

Extremes, even if they are rare, are important and must be taken into consideration. You might think twice about eating tomatoes if you found out that there was a large e-coli epidemic and it might kill you.

But that's where another variable comes in: Opinion.
Ex. "You should think twice about eating those tomatoes; there's an ecoli epidemic going around:

a) "I don't care."

or

b) "Ok, I'll leave them alone."

My point is that extremes have varying aspects. So is it the variables or the extreme itself that makes extremes important or not?

Fine, it depends on how extreme the extreme is and how rare it is. But it makes no sense to say something like "Extremes don't matter!" because sometimes they most certainly do.

[Essence]

Let me be more specific. 

Extremes don't matter to a rational, balanced argument.  For example, fear of flying on an airplane is silly -- airplanes are proven to be hundreds of times safer than flying in a car.  But because airplane crashes are extreme (as in, lots of people die at once), we pay more attention to them than to car crashes, which are much much more lethal overall. 

Extreme don't matter because the chances of anyone ever encountering an extreme are slim.  Humans being loss-averse, we are prone to avoiding extremes that involve loss (like flying on a plane) even as we engage in extremes that involve gain (like the lottery).  Both the avoidance of a safe method of flying and the engagement in a completely fruitless waste of money are out and out crazy, but we do them anyway.

To a sane, rational, logical person however (and I'm not even touting that as an ideal, just stating a fact), arguing from the extreme is irrelevant because extremes don't come into play often enough to make a relevant point.  Thus, they don't matter in a very real an literal sense.

[Rutarete]

Extreme don't matter because the chances of anyone ever encountering an extreme are slim.

*Lightbulb pops on* That just randomly reminded me of OHKOs in pokemon

[Neopergoss]

Let me be more specific. 

Extremes don't matter to a rational, balanced argument.  For example, fear of flying on an airplane is silly -- airplanes are proven to be hundreds of times safer than flying in a car.  But because airplane crashes are extreme (as in, lots of people die at once), we pay more attention to them than to car crashes, which are much much more lethal overall. 

Extreme don't matter because the chances of anyone ever encountering an extreme are slim.  Humans being loss-averse, we are prone to avoiding extremes that involve loss (like flying on a plane) even as we engage in extremes that involve gain (like the lottery).  Both the avoidance of a safe method of flying and the engagement in a completely fruitless waste of money are out and out crazy, but we do them anyway.

To a sane, rational, logical person however (and I'm not even touting that as an ideal, just stating a fact), arguing from the extreme is irrelevant because extremes don't come into play often enough to make a relevant point.  Thus, they don't matter in a very real an literal sense.

Maybe some extremes don't matter, but some do. If you tell a plastic surgeon exactly what you want, you'll probably get it. On the other hand, there are varying degrees of extremely botched surgeries, the most extreme mistakes resulting in death. Part of the problem here is that extreme has been defined so broadly. At what point does a botched surgery become extreme? At what point does rare become insignificant? Clearly, it depends on the exact situation and on an individual's perspective. The OP of this thread addresses an issue too vague to talk about in a sensible way at all. It seems like it was made so that specific arguments could be dismissed out-of-hand.

[OldTrees]

No model that is mistaken anywhere (extremes, normal or anywhere in between) is accurate.

The second statement, on the other hand, comes from the opposite principle: that is, reality can be described by models, which must be researched as thoroughly and tested as extensively as possible. Whether a final and conclusive model can be actually reached or not is another subject and doesn't matter here: both a Popperian search of impossible truth or a positivistic definitive approach have the search for a model in common. By accepting this search, you are accepting extreme cases as points to be subject to the model you're proposing, and therefore as possible arguments in the discussion.

Good accurate read.

Argument from the extreme is a rhetorical fallacy.  End of dicussion.

Argument from normalcy is also a fallacy. Both are fallacies of oversimplification and exclusion of possibilities.

Travel via airplanes:
Argument from the extreme: Airplanes sometimes crash so you should not travel on one.
Argument from normalcy: Airplanes rarely crash so you should be safe.
Valid Argument: Airplanes crash X% of the time and you are Y% risk adverse. You would prefer [to/not to] travel via an airplane. You [should/should not] travel via an airplane.

[BluePriest]

I believe the proper case is not to ignore extremes, but to remember they are there.

Take this situation.

My mom tells me to be back at 10 pm or I am grounded for a year.
I get back at 11 pm due to losing track of time.
I am grounded for a year.

compared to...

My mom tells me to be back at 10 pm or I am grounded for a year.
I get back the next day because a meteor crashed and cause the neighborhood to be blocked off for12 hours.
My mom understands.

Almost everyone would agree the mom acted the proper way in both circumstances. (ok so maybe a year of grounding is harsh, ill admit it, tweak to how you see fit). It is important to understand that extremes do happen, however, not to base everything around the chance of it happening. After all, just because a meteor could hit, and it could take me till the next day to make it there, the conversation shouldnt change to..

My mom tells me to be back the next day because even though shed prefer 10, you never know if a meteor is going to strike, so instead of giving false hopes of you getting here, just be back by tommorow.

[Chromatophore]

Yeah you don't want to leave out the extremes because they are part of the continuum but you don't want to focus too much on them either because there is the middle to consider as well.

[Pineapple]

Utilitarianism vs. normalcy vs. extremes.

average ttw over 200 games vs. the number of turns with the highest frequency vs that one game that took 29 turns.

Of course, it may be a tad different if you're dealing with human lives.

[BluePriest]

Utilitarianism vs. normalcy vs. extremes.

average ttw over 200 games vs. the number of turns with the highest frequency vs that one game that took 29 turns.

Of course, it may be a tad different if you're dealing with human lives.

most epic elements reference ever. Id give you karma if you had it enabled lol