General rationality question that should not be taken to reflect any particular opinion of mine on the topic at hand:
At what point should “we can’t find any knowledgeable critics offering meaningful criticism against <position>” be interpreted as substantial evidence in favor of <position>, and prompt one to update accordingly?
I feel it’s like “A → likely B” being an evidence for “B → likely A”; generally true, but it could be either very strong or very weak evidence depending on the base rates of A and B.
Not having knowledgeable criticism against position “2 + 2 = 4” is strong evidence, because many people are familiar with the statement, many use it in their life or work, so if it is wrong, it would be likely someone would already offer some solid criticism.
But for statements that are less known or less cared about, it becomes more likely that there are good arguments against them, but no one noticed them yet, or no one bothered to write a solid paper about them.
General rationality question that should not be taken to reflect any particular opinion of mine on the topic at hand:
At what point should “we can’t find any knowledgeable critics offering meaningful criticism against <position>” be interpreted as substantial evidence in favor of <position>, and prompt one to update accordingly?
I feel it’s like “A → likely B” being an evidence for “B → likely A”; generally true, but it could be either very strong or very weak evidence depending on the base rates of A and B.
Not having knowledgeable criticism against position “2 + 2 = 4” is strong evidence, because many people are familiar with the statement, many use it in their life or work, so if it is wrong, it would be likely someone would already offer some solid criticism.
But for statements that are less known or less cared about, it becomes more likely that there are good arguments against them, but no one noticed them yet, or no one bothered to write a solid paper about them.