so their presence in association with a widespread concept is not good Bayesian evidence (it is almost equally likely to occur in worlds where the main theory is true as where it is false)
And, in fact, it isn’t even clear in which worlds it is more likely to occur. In some cases the existence of scams claiming to sell X is actually (terrible) evidence that X is possible rather than terrible evidence to the contrary.
And, in fact, it isn’t even clear in which worlds it is more likely to occur. In some cases the existence of scams claiming to sell X is actually (terrible) evidence that X is possible rather than terrible evidence to the contrary.
That’s not so much a matter of which worlds as what information you already posses.
That’s not so much a matter of which worlds as what information you already posses.
It is that too but I was actually referring about the worlds, which do matter. The details of why and how X is possible influence make a difference to whether scams will be built around it, etc.
And, in fact, it isn’t even clear in which worlds it is more likely to occur. In some cases the existence of scams claiming to sell X is actually (terrible) evidence that X is possible rather than terrible evidence to the contrary.
That’s not so much a matter of which worlds as what information you already posses.
It is that too but I was actually referring about the worlds, which do matter. The details of why and how X is possible influence make a difference to whether scams will be built around it, etc.