One of the core principles of Bayesianism was “0 and 1 aren’t probabilities”. Double crux on the other hand seems to be about switching from the binary “I hold position X” to “I got a reason to stop holding position X”.
The think the binary version of DoubleCrux is a pretty clearly simplified, shorthand form.
“Find the evidence that would significantly change my evaluation of X’s likelihood, to a degree that actually impacts my actions or overall worldview or whatever” feels like a more accurate summary of how it’s used in practice.
This is what I mean when I say that presentation of Double Crux is logical, instead of probabilistic. The version of double crux that I use is generally probabilistic, and I claim is an obvious modification of the logical version.
One of the core principles of Bayesianism was “0 and 1 aren’t probabilities”. Double crux on the other hand seems to be about switching from the binary “I hold position X” to “I got a reason to stop holding position X”.
Do you understand Double Crux differently?
The think the binary version of DoubleCrux is a pretty clearly simplified, shorthand form.
“Find the evidence that would significantly change my evaluation of X’s likelihood, to a degree that actually impacts my actions or overall worldview or whatever” feels like a more accurate summary of how it’s used in practice.
This is what I mean when I say that presentation of Double Crux is logical, instead of probabilistic. The version of double crux that I use is generally probabilistic, and I claim is an obvious modification of the logical version.
That leaves the open question of why CFAR teaches the logical one instead of the probabilistic.