= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on Reply to Holden on The Singularity Institute - 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 (213)
I am coming to the conclusion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just bad advice, precisely because it causes people to conflate large consequences and prior improbability. People are fond of saying it about cryonics, for example.
We need two new versions of the advice, to satisfy everyone.
Version for scientists: "improbable claims require extraordinary evidence".
Versions for politicians: "inconvenient claims require extraordinary evidence".