Also, the usual situation of “if I think the main proposition is unlikely, bad outcomes will be dominated by cases where I miss loopholes in the bet or otherwise lose the bet for reasons unrelated to the truth of the proposition”.
No, because I have no way to improve my ability to see loopholes and flaws, so there’s always going to be residual uncertainty that can’t be reduced. Risk aversion does the rest.
That’s true in any scenario, though. For all of life really. The ratio of likelihood of loopholes costing you money versus losing the best costing you money doesn’t matter, as long as their absolute values are both low. And shoring up ambiguous language in the bet is how you make the former low.
Sorry, risk aversion.
Also, the usual situation of “if I think the main proposition is unlikely, bad outcomes will be dominated by cases where I miss loopholes in the bet or otherwise lose the bet for reasons unrelated to the truth of the proposition”.
Sure, I hear you there. Is there a way I could reword or clarify that would assuage that concern?
No, because I have no way to improve my ability to see loopholes and flaws, so there’s always going to be residual uncertainty that can’t be reduced. Risk aversion does the rest.
That’s true in any scenario, though. For all of life really. The ratio of likelihood of loopholes costing you money versus losing the best costing you money doesn’t matter, as long as their absolute values are both low. And shoring up ambiguous language in the bet is how you make the former low.