I’m settling for just one quadrillion to avoid dealing with the contingency of “3^^^3 is impossible because complexity”. The requirement of testability is not affected by the contingency.
If you assign the threat a probability of, say, 10^-20, the mugger is extorting considerably more dead children from you than you should expect to die if you don’t comply.
I don’t assign a positive probability until I see some evidence. Not in this case, anyway
Does that mean you assign a negative probability or a probability of 0? The former doesn’t seem to make sense and the latter means it is impossible to ever update your belief regardless of evidence (or incontrovertible proof). ie. I think you mean something different than ‘probability’ here.
Indeed, I don’t count unsubstantiated claims as evidence. Neither should you, unless you enjoy being Pascal-mugged.
I take ubsubstantiated claims as evidence. I take damn near everything as evidence. Depending on the context the unsubstantiated claims may count for or against the conclusion they are intended to support.
In fact, sometimes I count substantiated claims as evidence against the conclusion they support (because given the motivation of the persuader I expected them to be able to come up with better evidence if it were available.)
Indeed, I don’t count unsubstantiated claims as evidence. Neither should you, unless you enjoy being Pascal-mugged.
That doesn’t seem to be a response to above. Even in absence of “claims”, probabilities should not equal 0. If you have an algorithm for updating probabilities of 0 that plays nice with everything else about probability, I’d be interested to see it.
I’m settling for just one quadrillion to avoid dealing with the contingency of “3^^^3 is impossible because complexity”. The requirement of testability is not affected by the contingency.
If you assign the threat a probability of, say, 10^-20, the mugger is extorting considerably more dead children from you than you should expect to die if you don’t comply.
I don’t assign a positive probability until I see some evidence. Not in this case, anyway
Does that mean you assign a negative probability or a probability of 0? The former doesn’t seem to make sense and the latter means it is impossible to ever update your belief regardless of evidence (or incontrovertible proof). ie. I think you mean something different than ‘probability’ here.
Indeed, I don’t count unsubstantiated claims as evidence. Neither should you, unless you enjoy being Pascal-mugged.
I take ubsubstantiated claims as evidence. I take damn near everything as evidence. Depending on the context the unsubstantiated claims may count for or against the conclusion they are intended to support.
In fact, sometimes I count substantiated claims as evidence against the conclusion they support (because given the motivation of the persuader I expected them to be able to come up with better evidence if it were available.)
That doesn’t seem to be a response to above. Even in absence of “claims”, probabilities should not equal 0. If you have an algorithm for updating probabilities of 0 that plays nice with everything else about probability, I’d be interested to see it.