I agree that 10-50-90% is not unreasonable in a pre-paradigmatic field. Not sure how it translates into words. Anything more confident than that seems like it would hit the limits of our understanding of the field, which is my main point.
Makes sense. From the post, I thought you’d consider 90% as too high an estimate.
My primary point was that an estimate of 10% and 90% (or maybe even >95%) aren’t much different from a Bayesian evidence perspective. My secondary point was that it’s really hard to meaningfully compare different peoples’ estimates because of wildly varying implicit background assumptions.
I agree that 10-50-90% is not unreasonable in a pre-paradigmatic field. Not sure how it translates into words. Anything more confident than that seems like it would hit the limits of our understanding of the field, which is my main point.
Makes sense. From the post, I thought you’d consider 90% as too high an estimate.
My primary point was that an estimate of 10% and 90% (or maybe even >95%) aren’t much different from a Bayesian evidence perspective. My secondary point was that it’s really hard to meaningfully compare different peoples’ estimates because of wildly varying implicit background assumptions.