(August 22, 2023 at 10:25 am)Angrboda Wrote:(August 22, 2023 at 10:22 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: 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?
