RE 1: yes, but it’s a matter of degree. Technically every scientific theory is somewhat unfalsifiable (you can always invent saving hypotheses). But some are more falsifiable than others (some lend themselves to saving hypotheses, don’t make clear predictions in the first place, etc.) so falsifiability is still a useful criterion of theory choice. Likewise here with IB and needless jargon.
RE 2: This may just be my current writing style! I appreciate any constructive comments on how it might have been phrased better.
I read it as:
Hedging invites attacks
Confidence implies expertise
And then the concluding sentence is missing: “Therefore, seemingly confident speakers are actually more likely to be bluffing” (this is widely, but not universally, known [#link “it is known” by Zvi])
RE 1: yes, but it’s a matter of degree. Technically every scientific theory is somewhat unfalsifiable (you can always invent saving hypotheses). But some are more falsifiable than others (some lend themselves to saving hypotheses, don’t make clear predictions in the first place, etc.) so falsifiability is still a useful criterion of theory choice. Likewise here with IB and needless jargon.
RE 2: This may just be my current writing style! I appreciate any constructive comments on how it might have been phrased better.
I read it as: Hedging invites attacks Confidence implies expertise
And then the concluding sentence is missing: “Therefore, seemingly confident speakers are actually more likely to be bluffing” (this is widely, but not universally, known [#link “it is known” by Zvi])
The link is
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BNfL58ijGawgpkh9b/everybody-knows