Neph comments on The Modesty Argument - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 December 2006 09:42PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Neph 15 September 2013 05:43:48PM 0 points [-]

remember that Bayesian evidence never reaches 100%, thus making middle ground- upon hearing another rationalist's viewpoint, instead of not shifting (as you suggest) or shifting to average your estimate and theirs together (as AAT suggests) why not adjust your viewpoint based on how likely the other rationalist is to have assessed correctly? ie- you believe X is 90% likely to be true the other rationalist believes it's not true 90%. suppose this rationalist is very reliable, say in the neighborhood of 75% accurate, you should adjust your viewpoint down to X is 75% likely to be 10% likely to be true, and 25% likely to be 90% likely to be true (or around 30% likely, assuming I did my math right.) assume he's not very reliable, say a creationist talking about evolution. let's say 10%. you should adjust to X is 10% likely to be 10% likely and 90% likely to be 90% likely. (82%) ...of course this doesn't factor in your own fallibility.