4 ms·

As indrax partly pointed out, Russel's teapot exists in a void where rational entities with no hidden desires are discussing a single fact with perfect knowledg

As indrax partly pointed out, Russel's teapot exists in a void where rational entities with no hidden desires are discussing a single fact with perfect knowledge, and no other related facts exist. Reality is filled with humans whose behavior follows trends, and the entirety of science is based on the concept that past evidence applies to the future despite having no evidence it will, because we allow induction since deduction is based on axioms of which we have none.

eivarv 9y ago
So what is the inductive reasoning behind the alleged conspiracy in question, then? That it must have happened since the NSA has the intent and capabilities? Does this mean that any digital conspiracy you can dream up involving the NSA is probable?
- yellowapple 9y ago
  "Does this mean that any digital conspiracy you can dream up involving the NSA is probable?" Um, yes?
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  >Does this mean that any digital conspiracy you can dream up involving the NSA is probable? No. If I dreamed up that the NSA was using frequencies in CPUs to control our behaviors and increase our orange juice consumption, there are still reasons to not treat that one as having any reasonable probability of being true, compared to the notion that the NSA is working to get back-doors into software. Reasons for this difference in probability are based on feasibility, implications if true, how specific the claim is, and if it is in line with past behaviors.
  - eivarv 9y ago
    My point is, to follow your example re: orange juice consumption, that the reasons not to treat it as having any reasonable probability is secondary to the fact that there is no supporting evidence (burden of proof, etc.) As I replied in another subthread, I'd agree that probabilities with regard to what is reasonable to assume (the operative word here) shift as a consequence of circumstantial information, but you can't really draw any conclusions based on that.

eivarv 9y ago

So what is the inductive reasoning behind the alleged conspiracy in question, then? That it must have happened since the NSA has the intent and capabilities? Does this mean that any digital conspiracy you can dream up involving the NSA is probable?

yellowapple 9y ago
"Does this mean that any digital conspiracy you can dream up involving the NSA is probable?" Um, yes?
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>Does this mean that any digital conspiracy you can dream up involving the NSA is probable? No. If I dreamed up that the NSA was using frequencies in CPUs to control our behaviors and increase our orange juice consumption, there are still reasons to not treat that one as having any reasonable probability of being true, compared to the notion that the NSA is working to get back-doors into software. Reasons for this difference in probability are based on feasibility, implications if true, how specific the claim is, and if it is in line with past behaviors.
- eivarv 9y ago
  My point is, to follow your example re: orange juice consumption, that the reasons not to treat it as having any reasonable probability is secondary to the fact that there is no supporting evidence (burden of proof, etc.) As I replied in another subthread, I'd agree that probabilities with regard to what is reasonable to assume (the operative word here) shift as a consequence of circumstantial information, but you can't really draw any conclusions based on that.