= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
komponisto comments on Conversation Halters - 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 (94)
It's related. The distinction would be that, in the appeal to humility, the one denies that we can be 99% sure of the proposition in the first place, or perhaps even much greater than 50%; whereas in the appeal to less than absolute certainty, they ignore the significance of 99% certainty, and pretend that only 100% certainty "counts". (Or, they may ignore the significance of 90% certainty, and pretend that only >99% certainty "counts", etc.)
When this happens to me, I often try to explain how 100% certainty (or 0%) is a mathematical concept that's incompatible with how evidence is actually gathered (which they'll usually nod along to, unless they see where this is going), and then proceed to explain how this means that the word "certainty" does not, in fact, mean 100%.
This has yet to convince anyone. I should probably think of something else.