= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Open thread, Dec. 1 - Dec. 7, 2014 - 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 (346)
Often none.
For example, if a piece of evidence E is such that:
- I ought to, in response to it, update my confidence in some belief B by some amount A, but
- I in fact update my confidence in B by A2,
and updating by A2 gets me further from justified confidence than I started out, then to the extent that I value justified confidence in propositions I was better off without E.
Incidentally, this is also what I understood RowanE to be referring to as well.
But it's only bad because you made the mistake of updating by A2. I often notice a different problem of people to always argue A=0 and then present alternative belief C with no evidence. On some issues, we can't get a great A, but if the best evidence available points to B we should still assume it's B.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Yes, I notice that too, and I agree both that it's a problem, and that it's a different problem.