Unfortunately, this is a common conversational pattern.
Q. You have given your estimate of the probability of FAI/cryonics/nanobots/FTL/antigravity. In support of this number, you have here listed probabilities for supporting components, with no working shown. These appear to include numbers not only for technologies we have no empirical knowledge of, but particular new scientific insights that have yet to occur. It looks very like you have pulled the numbers out of thin air. How did you derive these numbers?
A. Bayesian probability calculations.
Q. Could you please show me your working? At least a reasonable chunk of the Bayesian network you derived this from? C’mon, give me something to work with here.
A.(tumbleweeds)
Q. I remain somehow unconvinced.
If you pull a number out of thin air and run it through a formula, the result is still a number pulled out of thin air.
If you want people to believe something, you have to bother convincing them.
+1
Unfortunately, this is a common conversational pattern.
Q. You have given your estimate of the probability of FAI/cryonics/nanobots/FTL/antigravity. In support of this number, you have here listed probabilities for supporting components, with no working shown. These appear to include numbers not only for technologies we have no empirical knowledge of, but particular new scientific insights that have yet to occur. It looks very like you have pulled the numbers out of thin air. How did you derive these numbers?
A. Bayesian probability calculations.
Q. Could you please show me your working? At least a reasonable chunk of the Bayesian network you derived this from? C’mon, give me something to work with here.
A. (tumbleweeds)
Q. I remain somehow unconvinced.
If you pull a number out of thin air and run it through a formula, the result is still a number pulled out of thin air.
If you want people to believe something, you have to bother convincing them.