RE: A fined tuned argument.....Heywood style.
April 4, 2014 at 10:53 am
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2014 at 10:57 am by Heywood.)
(April 4, 2014 at 10:32 am)LostLocke Wrote:(April 4, 2014 at 10:24 am)Heywood Wrote: I considered that point in post 1 of this thread and tossed it out for the reasons stated in that post.Which was dismissed mostly as a circular logical reasoning.
I dismissed your dismissal as poppycock because you failed to show it to be circular logic.
I acknowledge the point you made....before you made. I then gave a reason for discounting that possibility. There is nothing circular about my reasoning for discounting that possibility. If there is, quote it and show why it is circular reasoning.
(April 4, 2014 at 10:52 am)rasetsu Wrote: Which is what you use when you are in a position of maximal ignorance about the alternatives. A probability based on ignorance is meaningless. It doesn't show what the actual probability is, only the maximum we can know from a position of complete ignorance. We aren't concerned with ignorant probabilities but ones based on knowledge. If I want an ignorant opinion on how the universe came to be, I'll ask Bob the grocer. If all you've got backing your probability estimate is ignorance, it's not worth anything.
Whoa!.....we got a badass here.
Maybe you can enlighten us on the actual probabilities of A and B so we will no longer be in a position of ignorance.
