Where's the poison? Philosophy or science?

[Skepdick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the donkey will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water.[1] A common variant of the paradox substitutes the hay and water for two identical piles of hay; the ass, unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.

This version of the paradox presupposes that any choice is a good choice, so instead of self-paralysis just flip a coin. This is the standard probability theory resolution to uncertainty - give up choice/control for an instant. This is valid and sound reasoning because all choices are the same.

Here's the modified version where it becomes unreasonable to flip a coin.

There's water on either side of the donkey, one of them is poisoned, the donkey knows that much but doesn't know which one.

Possible strategies + outcomes for donkey:
A. Stay in one place - donkey dies.
B. Choose the wrong one - donkey dies.
C. Attempt to figure out where the poison is before dying of thirst.
D. Fuck that shit, I'm thirsty. I'll go to the river.

Transfer this mode of reasoning to a young adult entering society. Where's the poison? Philosophy or science?

Both sides say they are right.
Both sides claim the other side is wrong.

Fuck that shit, I'm thirsty. I'll go to the river.

And a scientist is born. The inventor of choice.

[Gary Childress]

The famous philosopher Gary von Specklepie Childress has solved the problem of Buridan's ass by choosing to mate with his newly adopted pet pussy instead of an octopussy.

[attofishpi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the donkey will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water.[1] A common variant of the paradox substitutes the hay and water for two identical piles of hay; the ass, unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.

This version of the paradox presupposes that any choice is a good choice, so instead of self-paralysis just flip a coin. This is the standard probability theory resolution to uncertainty - give up choice/control for an instant. This is valid and sound reasoning because all choices are the same.

Here's the modified version where it becomes unreasonable to flip a coin.

There's water on either side of the donkey, one of them is poisoned, the donkey knows that much but doesn't know which one.

Possible strategies + outcomes for donkey:
A. Stay in one place - donkey dies.
B. Choose the wrong one - donkey dies.
C. Attempt to figure out where the poison is before dying of thirst.
D. Fuck that shit, I'm thirsty. I'll go to the river.

Transfer this mode of reasoning to a young adult entering society. Where's the poison? Philosophy or science?

Both sides say they are right.
Both sides claim the other side is wrong.

Fuck that shit, I'm thirsty. I'll go to the river.

And a scientist is born. The inventor of choice.

Boony's room dude for this kind of contemplation..
viewtopic.php?t=40891