= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oscar_Cunningham comments on Instinctive Frequentists, the Outside View, and de-Biasing - 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 (23)
Given Eliezer's massive post of references for why the standard interpretation of the conjunction fallacy is correct, the burden of proof is on you if you want to argue with it. Go and read the research!
Which is more probable?
A. Some guy wrote a massive post defending the standard interpretation of the conjunction fallacy.
B. Some guy wrote a massive post defending the standard interpretation of the conjunction fallacy AND his massive post is evidence for said interpretation.
Why do people keep on replying like this to my comments? It doesn't make any sense. If I'm arguing for B and you're not arguing for A then it doesn't matter if P(A)>P(B). It can still be the case that P(B) is high!
EDIT: Especially if A is a know historical fact which we have easy access to. If P(A)=1 then that's no restriction on B at all!