True. The “rationalists can’t agree to disagree” theorem actually applies better to data and arguments within a single person’s head. When I’m presented with an apparent fact—such as good solid experimental data indicating that married couples can communicate via ESP—that would make me make sudden significant changes, I generally ignore it because I update the strength of my belief in that fact with respect to the strength all my other beliefs, just like in the inter-person case of updating estimates in response to other peoples’ estimates.
I would have serious doubts about the rationality of anyone who made significant changes in their beliefs based on one new fact.
Regardless of exactly what the new fact was?
Yes. A new fact is much more likely to be wrong or misunderstood than the entirety of your previous experience. Updating is a cumulative process.
True. The “rationalists can’t agree to disagree” theorem actually applies better to data and arguments within a single person’s head. When I’m presented with an apparent fact—such as good solid experimental data indicating that married couples can communicate via ESP—that would make me make sudden significant changes, I generally ignore it because I update the strength of my belief in that fact with respect to the strength all my other beliefs, just like in the inter-person case of updating estimates in response to other peoples’ estimates.