I understand the need to have a usable word for the concept. However trying to hijack meanings of existing words just seems like recipe to have conflicting meanings.
I agree. However, in the rationality community the term evidence is assumed to refer to Bayesian evidence (ie. as opposed to scientific or legal evidence). And I’ve always figured that this is also the case in various technical domains (AI research, data science). So then, at least within the context of these communities there wouldn’t be any hijacking or conflict. Furthermore, more and more people/domains are adopting Bayesian thinking/techniques, and so the context where it would be appropriate to have a term like “theoretical evidence” is expanding.
I am not worried that evidence is too broad. However on that short definition I have a real hard time identifying what is the “event” that happens or not that alters the probabilities.
I get that for example somebody might be worried that when this and neighbouring galaxy merge whether stars will collide. Understanding of scales means this will essentially not happen, even without knowing any positions of stars. Sure it is cognitively prudent. But I have a hard time phrasing it in terms of taking into account evidence. What is the evidence I am factoring in when I come to the realization that 2+2=4? To me it seems that it is a core property of evidence that it is not theorethical, that is the umph that drives towards truth.
I agree. However, in the rationality community the term evidence is assumed to refer to Bayesian evidence (ie. as opposed to scientific or legal evidence). And I’ve always figured that this is also the case in various technical domains (AI research, data science). So then, at least within the context of these communities there wouldn’t be any hijacking or conflict. Furthermore, more and more people/domains are adopting Bayesian thinking/techniques, and so the context where it would be appropriate to have a term like “theoretical evidence” is expanding.
I am not worried that evidence is too broad. However on that short definition I have a real hard time identifying what is the “event” that happens or not that alters the probabilities.
I get that for example somebody might be worried that when this and neighbouring galaxy merge whether stars will collide. Understanding of scales means this will essentially not happen, even without knowing any positions of stars. Sure it is cognitively prudent. But I have a hard time phrasing it in terms of taking into account evidence. What is the evidence I am factoring in when I come to the realization that 2+2=4? To me it seems that it is a core property of evidence that it is not theorethical, that is the umph that drives towards truth.
Check out How to Convince Me That 2 + 2 = 3 :)
The link connection is not evident and even there the association is with the external situation rather than thought-happenings.