The unscientific dialectics of toothache

A. Whether the natural outcome is optimal

If I follow the doctor's advice since I was a child, brush my teeth in the morning and evening, and rinse my mouth after meals, then under the premise of keeping my mouth clean, the impacted wisdom teeth will naturally grow on one side of the mouth, and I insist on giving birth to wisdom teeth in the mouth. It is the body's natural selection, allowing it to grow and crush the front molars. The result of this natural selection, for me now with neuralgia, is obviously not benign by any means. But whether there will be benefits beyond these pains in the future is unknown and unverifiable (but probably will not exceed), such as neuralgia stimulates brain activity or impacted wisdom teeth make other teeth more difficult to loosen. That is to say, this natural result is not optimal with high probability, but the possible benefit is also irreplaceable by the treatment result.

B. Extremely natural

If I was a savage who grew up in the jungle and had never seen a toothbrush and toothpaste, then in such an extreme natural state, it would be full of calculus to protect the teeth and damage the gums. Tooth pain under this condition must be less than the current neuralgia, but one unbearable negative benefit is the bad breath caused by dental calculus. That said, "natural" is not a valid measure.

C. One-way selection

Assuming that my monthly pocket money is fixed, then at this time, this money can either buy books or games, or be dedicated to the dentist. This means that in the natural state, either spiritual satisfaction (n) and physical pain (-m); or neither (0, 0); or I am crazy, put this money into the stock market, the next Get a few bucks more interest per month (a typical ne-uter path). So there is the basic problem of game theory:

|n 0|
|-m 0|

n and m are matrices of natural numbers, which are selected according to the size relationship between n and m. And the constraints are that I tolerate the bottom line of -m and the tolerance limit for n close to 0, that is, the negative benefit of not having new books to read:

|-mn|
|0 -n|

So, if n is small enough, I should choose treatment. But n is big enough, so I choose to buy the book.

D. Opposite relationship

On the premise that pocket money is fixed, I stand against the ease with which in my context the dentist and the book have nothing to do with each other. But it is clear that the two are not in the opposite direction of a single road, but two different roads. That is to say, the opposition in the context does not come from the "opposite" of intuition, but simply "cannot have both". Fortunately, the problem of toothache and the question of whether there is a new book to read are still on the same level of discussion, and the effectiveness of this level obviously relies on the same external thing (a specific amount of pocket money).

As for the opposition between natural laissez-faire and human intervention (the opposition between not going to the dentist and going to the dentist), the "pocket money" that I introduced has long been hidden behind the new opposition, mainly because "don't go to the dentist" has been replaced by "reading new books". That said, I'm simply making a palatial excuse for being too lazy to go to the dentist. The two propositions that were originally opposite to the road were replaced by two propositions that were "opposite" , and the originally opposite (opposite) referents were replaced by me in another context and disappeared. This is in the classical dialectics. , the idiomatic means of the School of the Sophists. As long as the language is obscure, it becomes very hidden.

E. Conclusion

Tooth hurts.