Saying that two extremes are both unreasonable is not the same as saying that those extremes are both reasonabe.
Said (if I am reading him right) is saying that it is unreasonable (i.e. unjustified) to claim that just because a problem hasn’t been solved for an extended period of time, it is therefore insoluble.
To which you (seemed to me to) reply “don’t just declare that [the original claim] is unreasonable. Prove that [the original claim] is unreasonable.”
To which Said (seemed to me to) answer “no, I think that there’s a strong prior here that the extreme statement isn’t one worth making.”
My own stance: a problem remaining unsolved for a long time is weak evidence that it’s fundamentally insoluble, but you really need a model of why it’s insoluble before making a strong claim there.
Said (if I am reading him right) is saying that it is unreasonable (i.e. unjustified) to claim that just because a problem hasn’t been solved for an extended period of time, it is therefore insoluble.
Which would be true if “reasonable” and “justified” were synonyms, but they are not.
no, I think that there’s a strong prior here that the extreme statement isn’t one worth making.”
Which statement is the one that is extreme? Is it not extreme to claim an unsolved problem will definitely be solved?
My own stance: a problem remaining unsolved for a long time is weak evidence that it’s fundamentally insoluble,
It’s weak evidence, in that it’s not justification, but it’s some evidence , in that it’s reasonable. Who are you disagreeing with?
Don’t say it’s unreasonable, prove it.
Prove that a problem is not insoluble? Why don’t you prove that it is insoluble?
The only reasonable stance in this situation is “we don’t have any very good basis for either stance”.
So both stances are reasonable, which is what I said, but not what you said.
Nnnno, I think you’re missing Said.
Saying that two extremes are both unreasonable is not the same as saying that those extremes are both reasonabe.
Said (if I am reading him right) is saying that it is unreasonable (i.e. unjustified) to claim that just because a problem hasn’t been solved for an extended period of time, it is therefore insoluble.
To which you (seemed to me to) reply “don’t just declare that [the original claim] is unreasonable. Prove that [the original claim] is unreasonable.”
To which Said (seemed to me to) answer “no, I think that there’s a strong prior here that the extreme statement isn’t one worth making.”
My own stance: a problem remaining unsolved for a long time is weak evidence that it’s fundamentally insoluble, but you really need a model of why it’s insoluble before making a strong claim there.
This is a reasonably accurate reading of my comments, yes.
Which would be true if “reasonable” and “justified” were synonyms, but they are not.
Which statement is the one that is extreme? Is it not extreme to claim an unsolved problem will definitely be solved?
It’s weak evidence, in that it’s not justification, but it’s some evidence , in that it’s reasonable. Who are you disagreeing with?
So both stances are reasonable, which is what I said, but not what you said.