Where is Eliezer's Metaethics Sequence?
"Of course you are assuming a strong form of Bayesianism here. Why do we have to accept that strong form?"
Because it's mathematically proven. You might as well ask "Why do we have to accept the strong form of arithmetic?"
"So, if some evidence slightly moves the expectation in a particular direction, but does not push it across the 50% line from wherever it started, what is the big whoop?"
Because (in this case especially!) small probabilities can have large consequences. If we invent a marvelous new cure for acne, with a 1% chance of death to the patient, it's well below 50% and no specific person using the "medication" would *expect* to die, but no sane doctor would ever sanction such a "medication".
"Why is 50% special here?"
People seem to have a little arrow in their heads saying whether they "believe in" or "don't believe in" a proposition. If there are two possibilities, 50% is the point at which the little arrow goes from "not believe" to "believe".
People seem to have a little arrow in their heads saying whether they "believe in" or "don't believe in" a proposition. If there are two possibilities, 50% is the point at which the little arrow goes from "not believe" to "believe".
And if I am following you, this is irrational. Correct?
I missed the last LW meetup for Madison, WI (my city). Does anyone no how it went? Is there interest in having another one? I'd certainly like that.
I second this.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Is there anywhere I could read about Anna Salamon's "alternatives procedure" prior to today's meetup?