4 ms·

> That's just it – there isn't. This is your position, but it's not a position presented in the Wikipedia article. > we should, and do, treat it unproven Do

> That's just it – there isn't. This is your position, but it's not a position presented in the Wikipedia article. > we should, and do, treat it unproven Do you mean disproved here, rather than unproven? I think that when we know something has been neither proved nor disproved we should treat it as unproven (because it is unproven), but that does not mean we should assume that it is false.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> This is your position, but it's not a position presented in the Wikipedia article. It actually is, it's Russell's position! :) You claimed that before, and I corrected you then, so here, again for you, is the relevant part: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37831693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37831693 Also, you forgot the rest of that! It was probably an honest mistake on your part, so I'll include the full context here, including the parts you missed, and hopefully you can address the whole thing now: > That's just it – there isn't. There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false". The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false.
- calderknight 3y ago
  > There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false". This is very unclear to me, but if what you mean is something like "There is no practical difference between supposing something to be false and supposing the thing to be so unlikely that it shouldn't be taken into account in one's decisions" I might agree with you - both that it is true and that something like it is present in the Wikipedia article - and we could go on from that point. >The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false. I'm not sure what the "it" is in the "it's" part of this sentence, so I can't respond to this part of your comment.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > > There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false" > This is very unclear to me, but if what you mean is something like "There is no practical difference between supposing something to be false and supposing the thing to be so unlikely that it shouldn't be taken into account in one's decisions" I might agree with you Not sure what part of that is unclear to you, but feel free to ask clarifying questions. I did indeed phrase what I said correctly. Your phrasing is also correct. To tie the two together, it is as likely, with our currently-zero affirmative evidence, that the teapot exists, as it is, with our currently-zero affirmative evidence, that the fighting staircase theory is true. Thus, if you effectively treat the teapot's existence as false, you should also effectively treat the fighting staircase theory as false. > > The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false. > I'm not sure what the "it" is in the "it's" part of this sentence, so I can't respond to this part of your comment. Again, you're always free to ask me questions if you don't understand something! In this case, "it" refers to the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory, since the two are analogous here.
    - calderknight 3y ago
      So, you no longer claim that > by default, it is untrue but instead that by default it is effectively untrue? And by that you mean that we can act in practical matters act as if it is untrue, even though we do not actually know whether that is the case?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I meant what I said, and also what you said is correct, too. Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: untrue, effectively untrue, practically untrue, and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

> This is your position, but it's not a position presented in the Wikipedia article. It actually is, it's Russell's position! :) You claimed that before, and I corrected you then, so here, again for you, is the relevant part: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37831693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37831693 Also, you forgot the rest of that! It was probably an honest mistake on your part, so I'll include the full context here, including the parts you missed, and hopefully you can address the whole thing now: > That's just it – there isn't. There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false". The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false.

calderknight 3y ago
> There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false". This is very unclear to me, but if what you mean is something like "There is no practical difference between supposing something to be false and supposing the thing to be so unlikely that it shouldn't be taken into account in one's decisions" I might agree with you - both that it is true and that something like it is present in the Wikipedia article - and we could go on from that point. >The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false. I'm not sure what the "it" is in the "it's" part of this sentence, so I can't respond to this part of your comment.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > > There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false" > This is very unclear to me, but if what you mean is something like "There is no practical difference between supposing something to be false and supposing the thing to be so unlikely that it shouldn't be taken into account in one's decisions" I might agree with you Not sure what part of that is unclear to you, but feel free to ask clarifying questions. I did indeed phrase what I said correctly. Your phrasing is also correct. To tie the two together, it is as likely, with our currently-zero affirmative evidence, that the teapot exists, as it is, with our currently-zero affirmative evidence, that the fighting staircase theory is true. Thus, if you effectively treat the teapot's existence as false, you should also effectively treat the fighting staircase theory as false. > > The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false. > I'm not sure what the "it" is in the "it's" part of this sentence, so I can't respond to this part of your comment. Again, you're always free to ask me questions if you don't understand something! In this case, "it" refers to the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory, since the two are analogous here.
  - calderknight 3y ago
    So, you no longer claim that > by default, it is untrue but instead that by default it is effectively untrue? And by that you mean that we can act in practical matters act as if it is untrue, even though we do not actually know whether that is the case?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      I meant what I said, and also what you said is correct, too. Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: untrue, effectively untrue, practically untrue, and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all.