China will remain on-schedule with their build-up of nuclear plants (70%) … The mainstream position of major environmentalist groups in Europe and North America will continue to be that nuclear plants are always delayed and far over budget, even as China continues to demonstrate otherwise (90%).
Is this the conjunction fallacy here? I read this as P (China on schedule) = 70% but P (enviros dis nukes & China on schedule) = 90%.
Do you mean P (enviros dis nukes | China on schedule) = 90%, or P (enviros dis nukes) = 90% with the reference to China a rhetorical flourish?
Looks like I could have phrased that better. My 70% prediction was that China would remain overall on schedule. My “China continues to demonstrate otherwise” statement only requires that a significant number of China’s nuke plants continue to be on schedule and under budget, which requires much less conjunction of events. For example, if huge setbacks arise for the construction of AP1000 reactors, but China’s CPR1000 reactors continue to be constructed cheaply and smoothly, then this could invalidate my first prediction but not the second.
That’s a nice thing about China’s approach to nuclear build-up: they’re going with a bunch of different designs and approaches, from conventional gigawatt behemoths to Russian fast breeders to indigenously-designed pebble beds. If something doesn’t pan out, they may not meet their goals, but they have a high probability of one or more approach working smoothly. So far, it looks like everything is going according to plan.
Is this the conjunction fallacy here? I read this as P (China on schedule) = 70% but P (enviros dis nukes & China on schedule) = 90%.
Do you mean P (enviros dis nukes | China on schedule) = 90%, or P (enviros dis nukes) = 90% with the reference to China a rhetorical flourish?
Looks like I could have phrased that better. My 70% prediction was that China would remain overall on schedule. My “China continues to demonstrate otherwise” statement only requires that a significant number of China’s nuke plants continue to be on schedule and under budget, which requires much less conjunction of events. For example, if huge setbacks arise for the construction of AP1000 reactors, but China’s CPR1000 reactors continue to be constructed cheaply and smoothly, then this could invalidate my first prediction but not the second.
That’s a nice thing about China’s approach to nuclear build-up: they’re going with a bunch of different designs and approaches, from conventional gigawatt behemoths to Russian fast breeders to indigenously-designed pebble beds. If something doesn’t pan out, they may not meet their goals, but they have a high probability of one or more approach working smoothly. So far, it looks like everything is going according to plan.
OK, thanks.