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.

gjm comments on Open thread, 25-31 August 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: jaime2000 25 August 2014 11:14AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (227)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (227)

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

Comment author: gjm 26 August 2014 01:09:03AM *  0 points [-]

[...] is a true statement coming from math logic, [...] is a false statement coming from human interaction

My reading of polymer's statement is that he wasn't using "plausible" as a psychological term, but as a rough synonym for "probable". (polymer, if you're reading: Was I right?)

P(B|A) = 1 which makes A and B essentially the same

No, P(B|A) is a little less than 1 because Beth might have read the email carelessly, or forgotten bits of it.

[EDITED to add: If whoever downvoted this would care to explain what they found objectionable about it, I'd have more chance of fixing it. It looks obviously innocuous to me even on rereading. Thanks!]

Comment author: polymer 31 August 2014 09:06:21PM *  0 points [-]

I'm not quite sure what the following means:

if you add details to a story, it becomes less plausible" is a false statement coming from human interaction.

I don't care whether it's false as a "human interaction". I care whether the idea can be modeled by probabilities.

Is my usage of the word plausible in this way really that confusing? I'd like to know why... Probable, likely, credible, plausible, are all (rough) synonyms to me.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit