Beauty, Morality, God, and a Table

[FrustratedFool]

The principle of insufficient reason says that, given no way to tell the answers apart other than by name, we assign equal probability to each. The odds of the seven people being wrong is less than the odds of the three people being wrong, so the three people are the most likely to be wrong.

Doesn't that assume:
a) Beauty and morality are things which statements about can, in fact, be true/false?
b) There is literally zero other information available (like all the arguments for the existence of God, or the opinions of all other people in the world, and so on)?

[FrustratedFool]

Without the evidence to back it up, people are only as correct as they personally, subjectively believe that they are.

So if I really, really, really believe that an invisible unicorn sleeps in my bed I'm correct to a large degree (whatever that means with a true/false statement)?

[Angrboda]

The principle of insufficient reason says that, given no way to tell the answers apart other than by name, we assign equal probability to each.  The odds of the seven people being wrong is less than the odds of the three people being wrong, so the three people are the most likely to be wrong.

Doesn't that assume:
a) Beauty and morality are things which statements about can, in fact, be true/false?
b) There is literally zero other information available (like all the arguments for the existence of God, or the opinions of all other people in the world, and so on)?

It's a hypothetical, thus a and b are moot. If we're talking about something other than a hypothetical then the principle of insufficient reason may not apply. Additionally, assigning truth values to things that have none is also being wrong.

[FrustratedFool]

Doesn't that assume:
a) Beauty and morality are things which statements about can, in fact, be true/false?
b) There is literally zero other information available (like all the arguments for the existence of God, or the opinions of all other people in the world, and so on)?

It's a hypothetical, thus a and b are moot. If we're talking about something other than a hypothetical then the principle of insufficient reason need not apply.

In the hypothetical a would still apply, surely? Otherwise you could apply (misapply?) the principle of insufficient reason to the hypothetical, '10 people look at a green, and 3 declare it to be frubious, 7 don't'. Or something like that. If it makes no sense to talk of something being correct/incorrect then it still be nonsense even in a hypothetical scenario.

As for b, my hypothetical assumed a real world context.

[Angrboda]

It's a hypothetical, thus a and b are moot.  If we're talking about something other than a hypothetical then the principle of insufficient reason need not apply.

In the hypothetical a would still apply, surely?  Otherwise you could apply (misapply?) the principle of insufficient reason to the hypothetical, '10 people look at a green, and 3 declare it to be frubious, 7 don't'.  Or something like that.  If it makes no sense to talk of something being correct/incorrect then it still be nonsense even in a hypothetical scenario.

As for b, my hypothetical assumed a real world context.

I added to my post. Since I framed my answer in terms of who is most likely wrong, it evades that problem as positing a truth value to something that lacks truth values is also wrong.

In the real world we can only make statements about what we know. Since I doubt you've actually polled some forty odd people, you're clearly simply adding to the hypothetical by stipulating that it's a real world question. That adds no information about the specifics as they are still hypothetical.

[Silver]

Without the evidence to back it up, people are only as correct as they personally, subjectively believe that they are.

So if I really, really, really believe that an invisible unicorn sleeps in my bed I'm correct to a large degree (whatever that means with a true/false statement)?

From your perspective, sure. I might know better, seeing your belief as delusion, but rarely does reason seep through the wall of comfort they've built around themselves.

[FrustratedFool]

In the hypothetical a would still apply, surely?  Otherwise you could apply (misapply?) the principle of insufficient reason to the hypothetical, '10 people look at a green, and 3 declare it to be frubious, 7 don't'.  Or something like that.  If it makes no sense to talk of something being correct/incorrect then it still be nonsense even in a hypothetical scenario.

As for b, my hypothetical assumed a real world context.

I added to my post. Since I framed my answer in terms of who is most likely wrong, it evades that problem as positing a truth value to something that lacks truth values is also wrong.

In the real world we can only make statements about what we know. Since I doubt you've actually polled some forty odd people, you're clearly simply adding to the hypothetical by stipulating that it's a real world question. That adds no information about the specifics as they are still hypothetical.

I suspect we are talking at cross purposes in some way here. I honestly don't follow your thinking here at all. I may lack the philosophical vocabulary and education to understand.

To me, it seems clear (though I could be wrong) that if a statement would be nonsensical to apply a T/F condition to, then saying the number of opinions that say it is T/F cannot possibly affect how likely it is to be T or F.

But, that does seem a side-issue.

Let's take this hypothetical as something that happened in front of you in the real world with all your current knowledge and the world as it is. What would be your response in each case then?

[FrustratedFool]

So if I really, really, really believe that an invisible unicorn sleeps in my bed I'm correct to a large degree (whatever that means with a true/false statement)?

From your perspective, sure. I might know better, seeing your belief as delusion, but rarely does reason seep through the wall of comfort they've built around themselves.

A statement about external reality can be more or less true from a person's perspective? That's a radical (to me) way of viewing things. But fair enough.

[Angrboda]

I added to my post.  Since I framed my answer in terms of who is most likely wrong, it evades that problem as positing a truth value to something that lacks truth values is also wrong.

In the real world we can only make statements about what we know.  Since I doubt you've actually polled some forty odd people, you're clearly simply adding to the hypothetical by stipulating that it's a real world question.  That adds no information about the specifics as they are still hypothetical.

I suspect we are talking at cross purposes in some way here.  I honestly don't follow your thinking here at all.  I may lack the philosophical vocabulary and education to understand.

To me, it seems clear (though I could be wrong) that if a statement would be nonsensical to apply a T/F condition to, then saying the number of opinions that say it is T/F cannot possibly affect how likely it is to be T or F.

But, that does seem a side-issue.

Let's take this hypothetical as something that happened in front of you in the real world with all your current knowledge and the world as it is.  What would be your response in each case then?

My response would be the same, if I were required to give an answer based solely on the information at hand. But that is probably not a real world scenario.

As to the other, there is an example of the liar paradox, the Cretin who says that everything he says is a lie. Some suggest his statement is meaningless, and if so, it would still be not true as not being true doesn't require that the statement have the truth value of false, or indeed any truth value, only that it not have the truth value of true, which it doesn't if it indeed has no truth value. Being wrong is similar.

[FrustratedFool]

Interesting. So when you are in an art gallery and overhear someone saying that a picture is beautiful, you would assess that person is likely stating a truth if you agree and no one else was there.