= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
James_Miller comments on Personal Evidence - Superstitions as Rational Beliefs - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (135)
Since everything you describe is highly plausible given gaslighting, then you only have a right to assign a high probability to something you should have assigned a very low prior to (such as supernatural events) if you can almost completely rule out gaslighting.
How likely of an explanation is that, really? How often does this happen? I feel like giving this phenomenon a name and a wiki page has artificially increased your probability of it. If you had just said "this could easily be explained by someone having a powerful grudge on you, sneaking into your house and waging a several month long campaign of psychological warfare on you", that would sound absurd.
I don't blame supernatural events. I believe the house is "haunted," but purely as a description of the events. (Smallpox is still smallpox even after we discover that it is caused by microorganisms rather than, say, angry spirits, or an imbalance in our body fluids.)
I think this was misleading.
Ok, you win. Now I'm confused. I don't interpret "haunted" in such a ... mundane way, and rereading your post with your connotations in mind, little of controversy remains.
It will probably help if you frame the post with my previous skepticism that even mundane hauntings existed. (With some extremely exceptional cases, like the guy living in the crawl spaces of somebody's home.)