I would expect an enormous bias in terms of how much attention is paid to “interesting” questions—propositions we could sensibly rate near-1 or near-0 are boring because they’re so obviously true or so obviously absurd that they feel mundane—like they’re hardly a question in the first place.
It’d feel like cheating by way of degenerate examples to enumerate every common object and say “I’m extremely sure that at least one of those exists”, but that is still a lot of propositions (even more propositions available if we dare to venture that two of each thing might exist)
Or for another partial explanation: on a question that is in any actual doubt, it’s difficult to gather sufficient evidence to push a probability estimate very far into the tails. There are only so many independent observations one can make in a day.
I would expect an enormous bias in terms of how much attention is paid to “interesting” questions—propositions we could sensibly rate near-1 or near-0 are boring because they’re so obviously true or so obviously absurd that they feel mundane—like they’re hardly a question in the first place.
It’d feel like cheating by way of degenerate examples to enumerate every common object and say “I’m extremely sure that at least one of those exists”, but that is still a lot of propositions (even more propositions available if we dare to venture that two of each thing might exist)
Or for another partial explanation: on a question that is in any actual doubt, it’s difficult to gather sufficient evidence to push a probability estimate very far into the tails. There are only so many independent observations one can make in a day.