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.

Locaha comments on Open thread for January 1-7, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: NancyLebovitz 01 January 2014 03:54PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (142)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (142)

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

Comment author: Locaha 01 January 2014 05:54:39PM -1 points [-]

Probabilities are useful for being precise about the claims that you are making. There no reason why one shouldn't be precise about the claim one is making even when one doesn't use a formal method to arrive at them.

How is the belief of some random person X in some vague-defined event many years into the future is useful for anything nut the research into person X state of mind? Even if it's defined to 1000 significant figures?

Comment author: ChristianKl 01 January 2014 06:09:02PM *  3 points [-]

If you are reading the text of a person who presumably care about that person state of mind and what this person believes. If you don't why do you read the text in the first place?

I do think there a difference between someone thinking an event is unlikely with p=0.2, p=0.01 or p=0.0001. It worthwhile to put a number on the belief to communicate the likelihood.

If people frequently provide likelihoods you can also aggregate the data.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit