5 ms·

There is no evidence, just speculation, that they were under arrest. They both said they were not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.

There is no evidence, just speculation, that they were under arrest. They both said they were not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

voakbasda 4y ago
There is sufficient evidence to believe that the CCP held a gun to their heads in order to coerce those statement. Quite possibly literally.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  I would be interested in seeing that if you happen to have it available.
- pphysch 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4y ago
    Please don't perpetuate flamewar on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We've had to ask you this more than once before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - drdeca 4y ago
    P(A|B) * P(B) = P(A & B) = P(B|A) * P(A) (Under the assumption that P(B) > 0 and P(A) > 0 ): P(A|B) > P(A) iff P(A|B) * P(B) > P(A) * P(B) and so iff P(A & B) > P(A) * P(B) and therefore, by the same reasoning in the other direction, P(A|B) > P(A) iff P(B|A) > P(B) (Let A and B be “the CCP is evil” and “the CCP committed [some particular wrongdoing]”)
    - pphysch 4y ago
      P(A)=1 is an axiom of mainstream Western thought.
      - drdeca 3y ago
        While, uh, no, regardless, that has no bearing on my point, which is that your point claiming that [it is reasonable to treat A as evidence for B, but irrational/religious to treat B as evidence for A], is entirely wrong[1]. [1](... with the possible exception of observing something which one previously had assigned a probability of zero, but, this ideally should only ever happen for things where one at least had a positive probability density, in which case a similar argument should still work. I didn't feel like working out all the details in the case of continuous probability distributions, as it is finicky and in any case is irrelevant to the discrete events you mentioned.)

There is no evidence, just speculation, that they were under arrest. They both said they were not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

voakbasda 4y ago

There is sufficient evidence to believe that the CCP held a gun to their heads in order to coerce those statement. Quite possibly literally.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I would be interested in seeing that if you happen to have it available.
pphysch 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't perpetuate flamewar on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We've had to ask you this more than once before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- drdeca 4y ago
  P(A|B) * P(B) = P(A & B) = P(B|A) * P(A) (Under the assumption that P(B) > 0 and P(A) > 0 ): P(A|B) > P(A) iff P(A|B) * P(B) > P(A) * P(B) and so iff P(A & B) > P(A) * P(B) and therefore, by the same reasoning in the other direction, P(A|B) > P(A) iff P(B|A) > P(B) (Let A and B be “the CCP is evil” and “the CCP committed [some particular wrongdoing]”)
  - pphysch 4y ago
    P(A)=1 is an axiom of mainstream Western thought.
    - drdeca 3y ago
      While, uh, no, regardless, that has no bearing on my point, which is that your point claiming that [it is reasonable to treat A as evidence for B, but irrational/religious to treat B as evidence for A], is entirely wrong[1]. [1](... with the possible exception of observing something which one previously had assigned a probability of zero, but, this ideally should only ever happen for things where one at least had a positive probability density, in which case a similar argument should still work. I didn't feel like working out all the details in the case of continuous probability distributions, as it is finicky and in any case is irrelevant to the discrete events you mentioned.)