= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kevin comments on Open Thread: April 2010 - 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 (524)
This (injunction?) is equivalent to ascribing much higher probability to the hypothesis (magic) than it deserves. It might be a good injunction, but we should realize that at the same time, it asserts inability of people to correctly judge impossibility of such hypotheses. That is, this rule suggests that probability of some hypothesis that managed to make it in your conscious thought isn't (shouldn't be believed to be) 10^-[gazillion], even if you believe it is 10^-[gazillion].
The probability that you have no grasp on the situation is high enough to justify an easy, simple, harmless test.
And I'd appreciate it if spoilers for the story were ROT13'd or something - I haven't read it.
You mean the plot point that Harry Potter tested the Magic hypothesis? I don't think most plot points in the introductions of stories really count as spoilers.
Yeah, that's not a spoiler any more than "Obi-Wan Kenobi is a Jedi" is a spoiler.
A "Jedi"? Obi-Wan Kenobi?
I wonder if you mean old Ben Kenobi. I don't know anyone named Obi-Wan, but old Ben lives out beyond the dune sea. He's kind of a strange old hermit.
Ah, of course. That's fine, then.
Although you might want to let EY know that someone posted unobfusticated spoilers for ... Chapter 10, was it? - in violation of community standards. ;)