Interesting question, i don’t know. but it also doesn’t matter here. if the moderator is ignorant he’s also ignorant of this fact, and thus cannot take it into account or will have to spend effort finding a good answer for it—so we’re back at square one.
Again, I have to disagree—misinformation is much more likely than information by default, and the moderator need only have a reasonable low-probability prior in order to reject unusual/uncommon claims without evidence.
Sorry about that; I believe I misread your comment as implying that if the moderator is ignorant, he won’t have enough information to form a reasonable prior. My disagreement was along that line, as it seems that misinformation, especially about medical things, is so prevalent that everyone’s default prior should be ‘fraud unless lots of evidence points the other way’.
Interesting question, i don’t know. but it also doesn’t matter here. if the moderator is ignorant he’s also ignorant of this fact, and thus cannot take it into account or will have to spend effort finding a good answer for it—so we’re back at square one.
Again, I have to disagree—misinformation is much more likely than information by default, and the moderator need only have a reasonable low-probability prior in order to reject unusual/uncommon claims without evidence.
I agree with that. not sure what you think i meant that you disagree with it.. (or was it directed at the comment above me?)
Sorry about that; I believe I misread your comment as implying that if the moderator is ignorant, he won’t have enough information to form a reasonable prior. My disagreement was along that line, as it seems that misinformation, especially about medical things, is so prevalent that everyone’s default prior should be ‘fraud unless lots of evidence points the other way’.