Perhaps you can answer: I don't know the probability of the dolphin. This is admissible — Pneumenon
You don't know if the coin will land on heads or tails. That makes the probability 50/50. — Isaac
We don't have to assume 50/50, do we? Couldn't one start at assuming a 100% probability of heads, leaving it to the Bayesian process to level out at 50/50? I'm just wondering what the correct process is. — Banno
Active disbelief is the belief that not-P.
Lack of belief is the absence of a belief that P.
I can be unaware that I lack belief in something. You lack belief in an invisible miniature dolphin swimming in continuous circles around your head right now. You were unaware that you lacked belief until you read that. You are now aware that you do not believe in the invisible miniature dolphin.
What is the probability of the invisible miniature dolphin's existence?
If you answer "0 or negligible," then you actively disbelieve in the dolphin. If you answer "non-negligible and non-0," then you simply lack belief in the dolphin. But, to simply lack belief in it, you must affirm a nonzero, non-negligible probability of its existence. To actively disbelieve in it, then you must affirm that the probability of the dolphin is 0 or negligible.
Perhaps you can answer: I don't know the probability of the dolphin. This is admissible. But, if you answer thus, you admit that you don't know whether or not you disbelieve in the dolphin. So, to avoid active disbelief while maintaining the absence of belief, you must claim ignorance about your own epistemic state. Whence this ignorance? — Pneumenon
Not with Bayesian probability it isn't. You don't know if the coin will land on heads or tails. That makes the probability 50/50. — Isaac
The error here is assuming that belief is some identifiable bit of data lodged in the brain somewhere, that of any given object (once described to me) I will create a byte of data corresponding binomially to whether I believe it or no — Isaac
There are probabilities I don't know. The probability of a coin landing on heads is not exactly 50/50, but I don't know what the exact ratio is. — Pneumenon
The presence of some piece of data in the brain is not implied by asking you either of those things, as far as I can see. — Pneumenon
I also there is nothing wrong with "believing" (or blindly guessing) in either direction. — Frank Apisa
Apart from a certain intellectual dishonesty... — Banno
Is it more important to have true beliefs, or to avoid false ones? — Pneumenon
can't accept an epistemology of probability that won't let me say that there are probabilities I don't know. — Pneumenon
Banno
7.4k
I also there is nothing wrong with "believing" (or blindly guessing) in either direction.
— Frank Apisa
Apart from a certain intellectual dishonesty... — Banno
You already channeled the discussion towards Bayesianism when you identified beliefs with probabilities. — SophistiCat
But, to simply lack belief in it, you must affirm a nonzero, non-negligible probability of its existence. — Pneumenon
Let me try a version of this: If I think about invisible dolphins swimming at this moment about my head, I assign to that a zero chance of being an accurate representation of reality. In ignorance, however - in saying, "I dunno" - I am (you say) affirming possibility. It would seem to evolve to the question of how someone who is aware can make stupid assertions. Answers: 1) there's no accounting for stupidity, and 2) that, or they're trying to sell you something.So, to avoid active disbelief while maintaining the absence of belief, you must claim ignorance about your own epistemic state. — Pneumenon
What is the probability of the invisible miniature dolphin's existence? — Pneumenon
If you did not, then what is this question supposed to mean? — SophistiCat
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.