You are using inside view arguments to argue against outside view.
I think the only thing that could convince me that outside view of predictions of the future works worse than inside view, is big database of such predictions showing how outside view did worse—that is outside view arguments against outside view.
Arguing against arguing against the outside view seems suspiciously indirect. Wouldn’t it be more convincing to just explain why you expect the outside view to beat the ignorance prior in this context?
You are using inside view arguments to argue against outside view.
I think the only thing that could convince me that outside view of predictions of the future works worse than inside view, is big database of such predictions showing how outside view did worse—that is outside view arguments against outside view.
Outside view arguments against inside view—countless failed expert predictions—is easy to find.
Arguing against arguing against the outside view seems suspiciously indirect. Wouldn’t it be more convincing to just explain why you expect the outside view to beat the ignorance prior in this context?
The subquote is an outside view argument. In fact, the post title, introduction and conclusion all take the form of an outside view argument.