In practice, I try to understand the generator for the claim. I.e. the experience plus belief structures that lead to a claim like it to make sense to the person. This doesn’t address the central problem, and on inspection I guess what I’m doing is trying to reconcile my own intuitive sense of miniscule probability of the claim as stated to me and the much higher probability implied by the form of the claim to them.
Also knightian uncertainty seems relevant but I’m not sure how quantitatively speaking.
In practice, I try to understand the generator for the claim. I.e. the experience plus belief structures that lead to a claim like it to make sense to the person.
I think that makes sense, and it’s sort of like what I was interested here is thinking about what the generator could actually be in cases that seem so unlike anything one has actually experienced or had direct evidence of, and, in the most extreme case, something that, by its very nature, would never leave any evidence of its truth or falsity.
Also knightian uncertainty seems relevant but I’m not sure how quantitatively speaking.
This post was sort-of a spin-off from another post on the idea of a distinction between risk and Knightian uncertainty, which I’ve now posted here. So it’s indeed related. But I basically reject the risk-uncertainty distinction in that post (more specifically, I see there as being a continuum, rather than a binary, categorical distinction). So this post is sort-of like me trying to challenge a current, related belief of mine by trying to see how subjective probabilities could be arrived at, and made sense of, in a particularly challenging case. (And then seeing whether people can poke holes in my thinking.)
(I’ve now edited the post to make it clear that this came from and is related to my thinking on Knightian uncertainty.)
in the most extreme case, something that, by its very nature, would never leave any evidence of its truth or falsity.
In Buddhism this comes from fundamental ignorance. Bundling together incoherent concepts due to not perceiving their actual structure. The parable of the coins is used to illustrate that the child and the normal person both have different types of ignorance about coins (currency) and only the money changer has a correct causal view.
In practice, I try to understand the generator for the claim. I.e. the experience plus belief structures that lead to a claim like it to make sense to the person. This doesn’t address the central problem, and on inspection I guess what I’m doing is trying to reconcile my own intuitive sense of miniscule probability of the claim as stated to me and the much higher probability implied by the form of the claim to them.
Also knightian uncertainty seems relevant but I’m not sure how quantitatively speaking.
I think that makes sense, and it’s sort of like what I was interested here is thinking about what the generator could actually be in cases that seem so unlike anything one has actually experienced or had direct evidence of, and, in the most extreme case, something that, by its very nature, would never leave any evidence of its truth or falsity.
This post was sort-of a spin-off from another post on the idea of a distinction between risk and Knightian uncertainty, which I’ve now posted here. So it’s indeed related. But I basically reject the risk-uncertainty distinction in that post (more specifically, I see there as being a continuum, rather than a binary, categorical distinction). So this post is sort-of like me trying to challenge a current, related belief of mine by trying to see how subjective probabilities could be arrived at, and made sense of, in a particularly challenging case. (And then seeing whether people can poke holes in my thinking.)
(I’ve now edited the post to make it clear that this came from and is related to my thinking on Knightian uncertainty.)
In Buddhism this comes from fundamental ignorance. Bundling together incoherent concepts due to not perceiving their actual structure. The parable of the coins is used to illustrate that the child and the normal person both have different types of ignorance about coins (currency) and only the money changer has a correct causal view.