3 ms·

If I say there's gold buried at certain coordinates, that's also true independent of whether I prove it. The point is that the quote is a heuristic that works

If I say there's gold buried at certain coordinates, that's also true independent of whether I prove it. The point is that the quote is a heuristic that works because most of the by the time you hear that claim, most of the statistical work has been done, hidden in the premise in a way that skips your intuitions a bit (the kolgomoroff comolexity of my phrase is a lot higher than yours, even though they're of about the same length, even though the number of bits needed to verify each is about the same).

throwaway2245 6y ago
>that's also true independent of whether I prove it. This is so different from my point that I'm not sure how it relates. I am confident there is literal treasure near to where I live, because I've seen very convincing evidence of dredging from multiple sources. In my mind, it is proven. But, I'm not acting on that because I don't find it worthwhile. On the other hand, if a stranger told me there was a police traffic stop in a particular direction, I'd probably take a detour - even if there was a complete lack of proof. Proof doesn't guide my action at all - I don't require a burden of proof in order to act. Burden of proof is a legal concept, not a philosophical one.
- morlockabove 6y ago
  You're acting based on your priors and new evidence. You have a high prior for police stops existing in general, and a low one for people randomly lying about it, so a stranger saying there's one that way is compelling evidence to you. You have a high prior on the existence of treausure nearvy, but a low one of the existence of treasure worth the effort of finding, so me telling you you could get rich quick isn't compelling evidence to you.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    This no longer has anything to do with 'burden of proof', which I continue to reject as a concept (maybe you are agreeing with me?).
    - morlockabove 6y ago
      I'm saying you're taking as if it were some sort of ontological model or normative rule of discourse, when really it's a verbalisation of a heuristic you've already admitted to using. You're using something like 'burden of proof' as an algorithm, even if you consciously reject it as a verbal tool.
      - throwaway2245 6y ago
        That's not a 'burden of proof'.

throwaway2245 6y ago

>that's also true independent of whether I prove it. This is so different from my point that I'm not sure how it relates. I am confident there is literal treasure near to where I live, because I've seen very convincing evidence of dredging from multiple sources. In my mind, it is proven. But, I'm not acting on that because I don't find it worthwhile. On the other hand, if a stranger told me there was a police traffic stop in a particular direction, I'd probably take a detour - even if there was a complete lack of proof. Proof doesn't guide my action at all - I don't require a burden of proof in order to act. Burden of proof is a legal concept, not a philosophical one.

morlockabove 6y ago
You're acting based on your priors and new evidence. You have a high prior for police stops existing in general, and a low one for people randomly lying about it, so a stranger saying there's one that way is compelling evidence to you. You have a high prior on the existence of treausure nearvy, but a low one of the existence of treasure worth the effort of finding, so me telling you you could get rich quick isn't compelling evidence to you.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  This no longer has anything to do with 'burden of proof', which I continue to reject as a concept (maybe you are agreeing with me?).
  - morlockabove 6y ago
    I'm saying you're taking as if it were some sort of ontological model or normative rule of discourse, when really it's a verbalisation of a heuristic you've already admitted to using. You're using something like 'burden of proof' as an algorithm, even if you consciously reject it as a verbal tool.
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      That's not a 'burden of proof'.