Agreed that paying attention to how evidence is filtered is super important. But, in principle, you can still derive conclusions from filtered evidence. It’s just really hard, especially if the filter is strong and hard to characterize (as is the case with UAPs).
Fair enough. (though...really you could in principle still handle filtered evidence in a formalish way. It just would require a bunch of additional complication regarding your priors and evidence on how the filter operates).
Yeah, I thought to note that in the comment that starts this thread; that’s not the kind of thing that seems practical when coordinating updating in an informal way. So more carefully, the intended scope of the comment is formal updating (computing of credences) that’s directed informally (choosing the potential observations and hypotheses to pay attention to).
Agreed that paying attention to how evidence is filtered is super important. But, in principle, you can still derive conclusions from filtered evidence. It’s just really hard, especially if the filter is strong and hard to characterize (as is the case with UAPs).
Sure, but that’s not about formal-ish updating that frames this post, where you are writing down likelihood ratios and computing credences.
Fair enough. (though...really you could in principle still handle filtered evidence in a formalish way. It just would require a bunch of additional complication regarding your priors and evidence on how the filter operates).
Yeah, I thought to note that in the comment that starts this thread; that’s not the kind of thing that seems practical when coordinating updating in an informal way. So more carefully, the intended scope of the comment is formal updating (computing of credences) that’s directed informally (choosing the potential observations and hypotheses to pay attention to).