3 ms·
Sure, but just because something isn't completely conclusive, doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that you shouldn't start taking action based on it. And where do
by anthonyb 16y ago
Sure, but just because something isn't completely conclusive, doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that you shouldn't start taking action based on it. And where do you draw the line? If something's 99% certain, or 99.9% certain, at what point do you stop arguing and take it as fact? When are you allowed to start actively advocating a particular theory?
- loewenskind 16y ago>or that you shouldn't start taking action based on it. Those who are convinced should indeed start taking action. >And where do you draw the line? That's up to the person. Some people have a threshold so high it will always be beyond our grasp to meet, some have a threshold of "higher probability score than any alternative" no matter how low the probability actually is (e.g. 5% chance vs 2%, 1%, etc.). >at what point do you stop arguing and take it as fact? Again, it's up to the person. But again, if the person doesn't accept something as fact I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with them presenting their unconvinced-ness as some kind of alternative "theory". >When are you allowed to start actively advocating a particular theory? When you have one. "The other guy is probably wrong" isn't a theory.