4 ms·

Reality? To which reality are you referring? How are you so certain what the reality here is or is not? How is your version of reality any more or less likely t

Reality? To which reality are you referring? How are you so certain what the reality here is or is not? How is your version of reality any more or less likely to be the truth? So, no one has proven what happened. That cuts both ways. And that's the point: there are unanswered questions. No one is stating for a fact that foul play was involved. People are merely asking questions. And, given the plausibility of foul play and the incredibly mind-blowing implications if there was foul play, it is much more rational to ask questions than to summarily dismiss out of hand that it is worth asking questions, or to ridicule those who do. Your post doesn't come off as clever. It just seems thoughtless and unserious.

dllthomas 13y ago
"Neither has been proved, therefore either is equally likely" is false, and if you believed that to be the case you would be horribly calibrated in your judgements, and parent would be right to criticize it. Plausibility is of course a much lower standard, but there is still some correct level of belief; I disagree with the parent in asserting that it is clearly below "plausible" but it's a legitimate discussion.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Neither has been proved, therefore either is equally likely" is false I didn't say that. Go back and read my post. In fact, it's the opposite. We have many trying to claim the illegitimacy of asking questions, because there is no direct evidence. The parent went so far as to ridicule those asking questions. So, it is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction. That is exactly what my post was about.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I know you didn't say that. Read my post more carefully. Though actually, you're close to saying it here: "[I]t is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction." If you lack evidence in either direction, your estimate of likelihood should be at your priors. If your mental model assigns the same prior probability to assassination as to car accidents, it's likely broken. I recommend reading through http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      I re-read your post. You are correct. It is possible to read it in a manner wherein you are not making the claim about my post. Seems a little odd as a response. Perhaps your intent would be clearer if your replies didn't hypothesize quite so much about what the parent might be thinking. I noticed a lot of "ifs" in your most recent post as well, as in "if you believe this or that". Comes off rather straw-mannish. Why not just stick to what the person actually said? But granted, I stand corrected. I'm aware of the general mode of privileging the hypothesis, though I've never heard that term. I'm not sure that there's anything new or groundbreaking in that post, however. For instance, criminal law is set up to avoid railroading suspects and it's a pretty easily identifiable fallacy, in general. In any event, your conclusion that I come close to claiming them equally likely rests on its own fallacy. That is, this statement is so general as to be misleading: "If your mental model assigns the same prior probability to assassination as to car accidents, it's likely broken" First, I didn't assign a probability. I said we should be asking questions. But what makes your argument fallacious is that details matter. It is not just any car accident. It is a fiery, one car, high speed accident, under unexplained circumstances. And, he is not just a random person, but a prominent reporter who brought down a powerful person and was working on a "big" story involving, presumably, other powerful people. Ignoring this information, and simply relying on the percentage of the general population who are in car accidents vs assassinated (i.e. relying on the priors) is misguided to say the least. And while there is a lack of concrete evidence in either direction at this point, the circumstances and information we do have point to the fact that we should be asking questions, not drawing conclusions on any side. Again, that is what my posts are about. Questions. OTOH, I'm not sure what you are actually trying to say, short of providing an off-topic and somewhat faulty explanation of how we should estimate likliehoods.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I think you are assuming I hold positions that I do not. I agree with you that foul play is sufficiently likely to warrant some consideration. I said as much in my own reply to skwirl's comment. "First, I didn't assign a probability. I said we should be asking questions." "We should be asking questions about X" is a claim that probabilities are sufficiently high that it's not a complete waste of time to be asking questions about X. You also said it was plausible, which is assigning some bounds on probability. Neither of those were what I was objecting to, however. I was objecting to what I saw as your rejection of the sort of argument skwirl was making ("This is sufficiently unlikely that it doesn't make sense to be talking about it") in the face of lack of evidence, rather than simple rejection of the particular claim skwirl made (which I reject as well).

dllthomas 13y ago

"Neither has been proved, therefore either is equally likely" is false, and if you believed that to be the case you would be horribly calibrated in your judgements, and parent would be right to criticize it. Plausibility is of course a much lower standard, but there is still some correct level of belief; I disagree with the parent in asserting that it is clearly below "plausible" but it's a legitimate discussion.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>Neither has been proved, therefore either is equally likely" is false I didn't say that. Go back and read my post. In fact, it's the opposite. We have many trying to claim the illegitimacy of asking questions, because there is no direct evidence. The parent went so far as to ridicule those asking questions. So, it is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction. That is exactly what my post was about.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I know you didn't say that. Read my post more carefully. Though actually, you're close to saying it here: "[I]t is they who are making claims about which is more likely, given a lack of evidence in either direction." If you lack evidence in either direction, your estimate of likelihood should be at your priors. If your mental model assigns the same prior probability to assassination as to car accidents, it's likely broken. I recommend reading through http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    I re-read your post. You are correct. It is possible to read it in a manner wherein you are not making the claim about my post. Seems a little odd as a response. Perhaps your intent would be clearer if your replies didn't hypothesize quite so much about what the parent might be thinking. I noticed a lot of "ifs" in your most recent post as well, as in "if you believe this or that". Comes off rather straw-mannish. Why not just stick to what the person actually said? But granted, I stand corrected. I'm aware of the general mode of privileging the hypothesis, though I've never heard that term. I'm not sure that there's anything new or groundbreaking in that post, however. For instance, criminal law is set up to avoid railroading suspects and it's a pretty easily identifiable fallacy, in general. In any event, your conclusion that I come close to claiming them equally likely rests on its own fallacy. That is, this statement is so general as to be misleading: "If your mental model assigns the same prior probability to assassination as to car accidents, it's likely broken" First, I didn't assign a probability. I said we should be asking questions. But what makes your argument fallacious is that details matter. It is not just any car accident. It is a fiery, one car, high speed accident, under unexplained circumstances. And, he is not just a random person, but a prominent reporter who brought down a powerful person and was working on a "big" story involving, presumably, other powerful people. Ignoring this information, and simply relying on the percentage of the general population who are in car accidents vs assassinated (i.e. relying on the priors) is misguided to say the least. And while there is a lack of concrete evidence in either direction at this point, the circumstances and information we do have point to the fact that we should be asking questions, not drawing conclusions on any side. Again, that is what my posts are about. Questions. OTOH, I'm not sure what you are actually trying to say, short of providing an off-topic and somewhat faulty explanation of how we should estimate likliehoods.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I think you are assuming I hold positions that I do not. I agree with you that foul play is sufficiently likely to warrant some consideration. I said as much in my own reply to skwirl's comment. "First, I didn't assign a probability. I said we should be asking questions." "We should be asking questions about X" is a claim that probabilities are sufficiently high that it's not a complete waste of time to be asking questions about X. You also said it was plausible, which is assigning some bounds on probability. Neither of those were what I was objecting to, however. I was objecting to what I saw as your rejection of the sort of argument skwirl was making ("This is sufficiently unlikely that it doesn't make sense to be talking about it") in the face of lack of evidence, rather than simple rejection of the particular claim skwirl made (which I reject as well).