An outcome is Bayesian evidence for a proposition, if the outcome is more likely to occur if the proposition is true, than vice versa.
That assumes that there is a statistical correlation between the two, no? If the two are orthogonal to each other, they’re statistically uncorrelated, by definition.
The local agreement (on Lesswrong) on a proposition is not independent of the veracity of the proposition. To claim otherwise is to claim that Lesswrongers form their beliefs through a process that is no better than random guessing. That’s a very strong claim to make, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
“The local agreement (on Lesswrong) on a proposition is not independent of the veracity of the proposition.”
Sure, and that is equally true of indefinitely many other populations in the world and the whole population as well. It would take an argument to establish that LW local agreement is better than any particular one of those populations.
That assumes that there is a statistical correlation between the two, no? If the two are orthogonal to each other, they’re statistically uncorrelated, by definition.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/
The local agreement (on Lesswrong) on a proposition is not independent of the veracity of the proposition. To claim otherwise is to claim that Lesswrongers form their beliefs through a process that is no better than random guessing. That’s a very strong claim to make, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
“The local agreement (on Lesswrong) on a proposition is not independent of the veracity of the proposition.”
Sure, and that is equally true of indefinitely many other populations in the world and the whole population as well. It would take an argument to establish that LW local agreement is better than any particular one of those populations.
Then we are in agreement.
As for Lesswrong vs the general population, I point to the difference in epistemic hygiene between the two groups.