3 is still a small number. If it were 10+ then you should worry. I’m confused by this too.
The nearest correct idea I can think of to what Jim actually said, is that if you have a proposition P with an associated credence based on the available evidence, then finding an additional but invalid argument A shouldn’t affect your credence in P. The related error is assuming that if you argue with someone and are able to demolish all their arguments, that this means that you are correct, and giving too little weight to the possibility that they are a bad arguer with a true opinion. Jim, is that close to what you meant?
EDIT: Whoops, didn’t see Jim’s response. But it looks like I guessed right. I’ve also made the related error in the past, and this quote from Black Belt Bayesian was helpful in improving my truth-finding ability:
To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse.
3 is still a small number. If it were 10+ then you should worry. I’m confused by this too.
The nearest correct idea I can think of to what Jim actually said, is that if you have a proposition P with an associated credence based on the available evidence, then finding an additional but invalid argument A shouldn’t affect your credence in P. The related error is assuming that if you argue with someone and are able to demolish all their arguments, that this means that you are correct, and giving too little weight to the possibility that they are a bad arguer with a true opinion. Jim, is that close to what you meant?
EDIT: Whoops, didn’t see Jim’s response. But it looks like I guessed right. I’ve also made the related error in the past, and this quote from Black Belt Bayesian was helpful in improving my truth-finding ability: