= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FiftyTwo comments on New Year's Prediction Thread (2012) - 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 (339)
Okay, this seems like nothing could possibly go wrong just from my making some educated guesses, right?
90%: the probabilities in this post are poorly calibrated, but things I think are likely will probably happen, and the converse is also true.
10%: I'll learn to play Magic: the Gathering by 2013.
.1%: Singularity occurs before January 1, 2013.
80%: Occupy protests do not end before May.
90%: Judge Rotenberg Center continues torturing children at least through December 31, 2012.
99% There will be at least one update to Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality this year.
99% The Winds of Winter will not be released this year.
85% George R. R. Martin will not die this year.
While I know nothing about the case, given that sentence has the same structure as 'have you stopped beating your wife' it may be hard to place a prediction on.
Rotenburg Center
I agree that this is torture. However, I recommend adding links for subjects which aren't common knowledge.
Another school-- uses mace rather than electric shocks
I have no strong opinion about when or whether these practices will be stopped.
It doesn't have the same structure at all. "No" is always the preferred response to "do you continue to beat your wife?" The preferred answer of a strict reading of "have you stopped beating your wife?" depends on whether you had been previously (which sets up the trap of the joke).
"Did they continue torturing children?" "No" implies they had in the past.
"Did they continue torturing children?" "Yes" is only true if they did so in the past and are continuing to do so.
What I meant was without assuming a value for 'they have tortured children in the past' (which I assume to be at least slightly controversial) you cannot give a probability to it.
Though I suppose if they have not tortured children in the past the correct probability of continuation would be 0% as it is impossible. Same as the prediction "P&¬P." (Though realistically you'd want to incorporate your assessment of the available evidence, see my comment on kalla724's post).
That's why you think it's unreasonable to accuse them of torture.
I'll consider myself to have guessed wrong if it comes out that they were really never torturing anyone at all to begin with. I will not, however, use a euphemism when what I mean is "torture".
Point was, you didn't make the accusation first, and then predict its continuation.
I didn't think I needed to for the same reason that I didn't think I needed to separately claim that there are OWS protests before predicting their continuation. I thought this wasn't up for debate.