(October 12, 2016 at 10:48 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 12, 2016 at 10:11 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: What we're talking about here is basically Bayesian Probability. The likelihood of a proposition or claim is calculated based on prior knowledge. Propositions or claims that contradict knowledge we already have are assigned lower probability than propositions or claims consistent with our prior knowledge.
I tied my shoes this morning. I tied my shoes this morning with telekinesis. The former is more probable than the latter because the latter involves a method of tying shoes that has never been proven to exist and has issues the laws of biology and physics. Therefore, it is reasonable to require more evidence to accept the latter claim than to accept the former. Also note the difference in consequence: Even if I'm lying about tying my shoes (maybe I'm barefoot or wearing sandals or something), what does your mistaken acceptance of my first claim cost you? Nothing. Accepting my second claim, however, has implications for the breadth and depth of human knowledge thus far...you should be very skeptical and require a high level of evidence before believing it. Way more than my anecdote.
How do you calculate what you do not know?
Prior probabilities don't have to be accurate. You could have 50/50 for all I care. Eventually, after a series of these calculations, you'll have to accept that some events are just more probable than others given what we do know is real in this world.
