Then I guess the OP’s point could be amended to be “in worlds where we know nothing at all, long conjunctions of mutually-independent statements are unlikely to be true”. Not a particularly novel point, but a good reminder of why things like Occam’s razor work.
Still, P(A and B) ≤ P(A) regardless of the relationship between A and B, so a fuzzier version of OP’s point stands regardless of dependence relations between statements.
Sure, there are certainly true things that can be said about a world in spite of one’s state of ignorance. But what I read the OP to imply is that certain things can supposedly be said about a world precisely because of that state of ignorance, and that’s what I was arguing against.
Then I guess the OP’s point could be amended to be “in worlds where we know nothing at all, long conjunctions of mutually-independent statements are unlikely to be true”. Not a particularly novel point, but a good reminder of why things like Occam’s razor work.
Still, P(A and B) ≤ P(A) regardless of the relationship between A and B, so a fuzzier version of OP’s point stands regardless of dependence relations between statements.
Sure, there are certainly true things that can be said about a world in spite of one’s state of ignorance. But what I read the OP to imply is that certain things can supposedly be said about a world precisely because of that state of ignorance, and that’s what I was arguing against.
Right. Pure ignorance is not evidence.