people whose coalitional membership is constituted by their shared adherence to “rational,” scientific propositions have a problem when—as is generally the case—new information arises which requires belief revision.
My first reaction was that perhaps the community should be centered around updating on evidence rather than any specific science.
But of course, that can fail, too. For example, people can signal their virtue by updating on tinier and tinier pieces of evidence. Like, when the probability increases from 0.000001 to 0.0000011, people start yelling about how this changes everything, and if you say “huh, for me that is almost no change at all”, you become the unworthy one who refuses to update in face of evidence.
(The people updating on the tiny evidence most likely won’t even be technically correct, because purposefully looking for microscopic pieces of evidence will naturally introduce selection bias and double counting.)
My first reaction was that perhaps the community should be centered around updating on evidence rather than any specific science.
But of course, that can fail, too. For example, people can signal their virtue by updating on tinier and tinier pieces of evidence. Like, when the probability increases from 0.000001 to 0.0000011, people start yelling about how this changes everything, and if you say “huh, for me that is almost no change at all”, you become the unworthy one who refuses to update in face of evidence.
(The people updating on the tiny evidence most likely won’t even be technically correct, because purposefully looking for microscopic pieces of evidence will naturally introduce selection bias and double counting.)