= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Horrible LHC Inconsistency - 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 (32)
Inconsistent with what? Inconsistent is a 2-place predicate.
It gives us different probabilities for different hypotheses, depending on the minority. The idea that global warming is not caused by human activity is currently believed by about 1-2% of climatologists.
If you have a hard time finding a theory that you can't, by this criterion, say is true with more than 999/1000 probability, I'd say that's a feature, not a bug.
I am not sure what I had in mind when I had written the reply, but I guess it was somehow related to existence of more than thousand mutually exclusive hypotheses supposing destruction of the Earth, each of which should, if given reasoning is correct, have probability 1/1000 or more.
Full complex theory, maybe, but there should be plenty of hypotheses similar to "the Earth will not be destroyed by LHC" with far greater certainty than 0.999. What about "the sun will rise tomorrow"?