= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bogus comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - 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 (1329)
Surely you mean 'likelihood' here, not prior probability. Prior probabilities are imputed based on one's uncertainty before any evidence is taken into account, and theism scores fairly high on this metric.
The selection should be read something like:
(Due to complexity)
In addition, the hypothesis does not become more likely once we consider the evidence...
"Due", not "do".
Also, I think the confusion merely arises from arrangement and Gricean-maxim(-like?) considerations - I predict adding "Further" before "[a]ny evidence" would suffice to invoke the correct interpretation.
You're obviously right on both counts. Edited.
Remember to flag the edit - I like the footnote method.