= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nerzhin comments on Good Quality Heuristics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (112)
But (assuming for the sake of argument the books count as documentary evidence) would you say they had a higher probability of being right than: 'someone who had read the books once' or 'someone who had never read the books.' Or would you expect them all to be equally likely to be right or wrong?
Someone who has read the books, but isn't a fan > a dedicated fan > someone who never read the books. I'd expect dedicated fans to over-count the books as evidence and to not give very different scenarios enough consideration, or fail to think of them at all.
But surely they are also more likely to have inconsistent beliefs that a person who had engaged in discussion wouldn't? (E.g. misunderstanding a section in a way that could easily be noticed in discussion.)
Analogously very few theology professors believe in the literal creation story, for obvious reasons, and are likely to have slightly more coherent conceptions of free will/sin/miracles.