Show Posts
1
Serious / Evidence, probability
« on: September 04, 2015, 04:56:59 PM »
I'm also making a thread in serious before I'm banned for ban evasion.
The point that I'm making is that just because something may have more evidence for it does not make it more or less likely. In other words, evidence does not have bearing on real probability.
Two kinds of probability: 1) quantum/real probability & 2) lack of knowledge probability
1) There's a definite probability of the way in which electrons and subatomic particles behave.
2) This is what logic is. Logic is an assessment of all possibilities, and the cancellation of all that can be ruled out. You then take the probability of the solutions that remain. This is where the mistake happens though. People confuse this kind of probability for real probability.
Let me prove the difference between the two using an example.
Say there are two theories, only one is right but you have no knowledge on which it may be. You choose to pour all your funding into research of one of the two theories. After researching, you find that you have lots of evidence for the theory you researched, but zero evidence for the theory you didn't research. Does this mean that the theory with evidence is more likely to be correct?
The answer is obviously no.
If you make a claim and have no evidence for it, it's not indiscernible. Politicians like to use this to their advantage, so be careful in the real world. Social darwinism--everyone is secretly a selfish prick.
The point that I'm making is that just because something may have more evidence for it does not make it more or less likely. In other words, evidence does not have bearing on real probability.
Two kinds of probability: 1) quantum/real probability & 2) lack of knowledge probability
1) There's a definite probability of the way in which electrons and subatomic particles behave.
2) This is what logic is. Logic is an assessment of all possibilities, and the cancellation of all that can be ruled out. You then take the probability of the solutions that remain. This is where the mistake happens though. People confuse this kind of probability for real probability.
Let me prove the difference between the two using an example.
Say there are two theories, only one is right but you have no knowledge on which it may be. You choose to pour all your funding into research of one of the two theories. After researching, you find that you have lots of evidence for the theory you researched, but zero evidence for the theory you didn't research. Does this mean that the theory with evidence is more likely to be correct?
The answer is obviously no.
If you make a claim and have no evidence for it, it's not indiscernible. Politicians like to use this to their advantage, so be careful in the real world. Social darwinism--everyone is secretly a selfish prick.