You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

JackV comments on Irrationality Game II - Less Wrong Discussion

13 [deleted] 03 July 2012 06:50PM

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

Comments (380)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JackV 04 July 2012 10:18:41AM -1 points [-]

I'd not seen Elizier's post on "0 and 1 are not probabilities" before. It was a very interesting point. The link at the end was very amusing.

However, it seems he meant "it would be more useful to define probabilities excluding 0 and 1" (which may well be true), but phrased it as if it were a statement of fact. I think this is dangerous and almost always counterproductive -- if you mean "I think you are using these words wrong" you should say that, not give the impression you mean "that statement you made with those words is false according to your interpretation of those words is false".