4 ms·
Good point. I'd say that for any new information, there does need to be an initial 'smell test' threshold. When confronted with something so outlandish, I typic
by 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
Good point. I'd say that for any new information, there does need to be an initial 'smell test' threshold. When confronted with something so outlandish, I typically switch to making a judgment about the person and how their thought processes work. I.e., ask them to explain the basis of their claim and look for overt logical fallacies, which we all get better at identifying over time.
It's also got to be a matter of sufficient consequence to be worth the time.
- esc_colon_q 6y agoBayes has you covered, if your priors rank something as exceptionally likely or unlikely, then you probably shouldn't pay much attention to new information (especially when it's from some random person and carries a high likelihood of being misleading). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.