If you do not use 0 as a probablity you should always have doubts.
If we know a proof arrives at an erroreneous position then we know there must be a mistake in it. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argumentation as is modus tollens.
A proof about being likely needs to be relative to a state of evidence. That is you can prove that someone is framed without thinking that he did the crime.
Proofs for god don’t come from a neutral source, there is no inclination to think it must be balanced outcomes. Dice don’t care about you, they dole out all outcomes. However getting rock in rock,paper, scissors when the opponent has seen first that you are playing scissors is not suprising and there is less reason to ever expect paper.
That is if you have 99 invalid forms of reasoning and 1 valid form of reasoning it doesn’t make the remaining standing reasoning less valid. You need to take into account the clever arguers stamp claim.
If one were to be very hardcore it would be a good policy to be evenhanded about proof-lengths. However at the point that the claim checks out to the cut-off length one needs to remain in “plausible undecided” stance. Then claims like “nobody has ever put forth a proof for X” become claims like “It has never been practical for me to follow throught a proof of X”. It has flipsides of “open until explained but unconvinced until explained” and that you need to track shadows of doubts for “good” results. Good scientists wait for replication and don’t jump on first postive indicator and retain uncertainties even in textbook-printed numbers.
If you do not use 0 as a probablity you should always have doubts.
If we know a proof arrives at an erroreneous position then we know there must be a mistake in it. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argumentation as is modus tollens.
A proof about being likely needs to be relative to a state of evidence. That is you can prove that someone is framed without thinking that he did the crime.
Proofs for god don’t come from a neutral source, there is no inclination to think it must be balanced outcomes. Dice don’t care about you, they dole out all outcomes. However getting rock in rock,paper, scissors when the opponent has seen first that you are playing scissors is not suprising and there is less reason to ever expect paper.
That is if you have 99 invalid forms of reasoning and 1 valid form of reasoning it doesn’t make the remaining standing reasoning less valid. You need to take into account the clever arguers stamp claim.
If one were to be very hardcore it would be a good policy to be evenhanded about proof-lengths. However at the point that the claim checks out to the cut-off length one needs to remain in “plausible undecided” stance. Then claims like “nobody has ever put forth a proof for X” become claims like “It has never been practical for me to follow throught a proof of X”. It has flipsides of “open until explained but unconvinced until explained” and that you need to track shadows of doubts for “good” results. Good scientists wait for replication and don’t jump on first postive indicator and retain uncertainties even in textbook-printed numbers.