The rule of the rationalist’s game is that every improbable-seeming belief needs an equivalent amount of evidence to justify it.
Aren’t you already breaking it allowing what you consider improbable GLUTs with no evidence?
Also how would you play this game with someone with a vastly different prior?
The rule of the rationalist’s game is that every improbable-seeming belief needs an equivalent amount of evidence to justify it.
Aren’t you already breaking it allowing what you consider improbable GLUTs with no evidence?
Also how would you play this game with someone with a vastly different prior?