Thanks for the pointer. John Nerst’s approach is similar to mine.
The way I would formulate it here : De facto, people have different priors. If there is a debate/discussion, the most fruitful result would come by construing, in common if possible, a more encompassing reference frame, where both sets of priors can be expressed to their respective satisfaction. It is not easy. Some priors will be incompatible as such. A real dialogue supposes a readiness to examine ones priors and eventually adjust them to be less restrictive. A static defense of one’s priors is mostly a waste of time (or a show).
Caveat : bad faith exists, people, and groups, have vulnerabilities they will protect. So a real dialogue is not always possible, or only very partially.
Thanks for the pointer. John Nerst’s approach is similar to mine.
The way I would formulate it here :
De facto, people have different priors.
If there is a debate/discussion, the most fruitful result would come by construing, in common if possible, a more encompassing reference frame, where both sets of priors can be expressed to their respective satisfaction.
It is not easy. Some priors will be incompatible as such.
A real dialogue supposes a readiness to examine ones priors and eventually adjust them to be less restrictive.
A static defense of one’s priors is mostly a waste of time (or a show).
Caveat : bad faith exists, people, and groups, have vulnerabilities they will protect. So a real dialogue is not always possible, or only very partially.
The idea is to at least try.