Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In which regard? I strongly suspect I agree with you here; this statement is too ambiguous without clarification to be able to truly tell.
Agreed.
Agreed. Now define uncontroversial.
If only it was legal to do so.
P(politically compromised | states is not politically compromised) > P(politically compromised | does not state is not politically compromised)
It does mean I trust everything they say less, yes.
The solution to "our experts can't be trusted when the topic is political" is not to always ignore experts, that's going to result in more incorrect decision than listening to experts even when they are wrong.
"trust less" does not imply "always ignore". The input is still taken into consideration; it is weighted less than it would otherwise be.
Someone stating something results in upweighting to some extent or another all hypotheses that are compatible with that observation. (Assuming you have made sure your hypotheses are not overlapping.)
In this case, someone stating a falsehood on something political results in upweighting the hypothesis that they are incorrect on political matters and correct on apolitical matters, as this is compatible with said observation. It also results in upweighting the hypothesis that they are incorrect on political matters and incorrect on apolitical matters, as this is also compatible with said observation.
[N.B. I have stated nothing here about how much said updates change the weighting.]
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link