If no people believe Y—literally no people—then either the topic is very little examined by human beings, or it’s very exhaustively examined and seems obvious to everyone. In the first case, I give a smaller probability than in the second case.
In the first case, only X believers exist because only X believers have yet considered the issue. That’s minimal evidence in favor of X.
In the second case, lots of people have heard of the issue; if there were a decent case against X, somebody would have thought of it. The fact that none of them—not a minority, but none—argued against X is strong evidence that X is true.
If no people believe Y—literally no people—then either the topic is very little examined by human beings, or it’s very exhaustively examined and seems obvious to everyone. In the first case, I give a smaller probability than in the second case.
If no people believe Y—literally no people—then either the topic is very little examined by human beings, or it’s very exhaustively examined and seems obvious to everyone. In the first case, I give a smaller probability than in the second case.
In the first case, only X believers exist because only X believers have yet considered the issue. That’s minimal evidence in favor of X. In the second case, lots of people have heard of the issue; if there were a decent case against X, somebody would have thought of it. The fact that none of them—not a minority, but none—argued against X is strong evidence that X is true.
Isn’t the other way around?
(Good analysis, by the way.)