X doesn't know whether O is real/not and that in probabilistic terms means that, insofar as X is concerned, O is as likely to be real as O is likely to not be real. — TheMadFool
This is the same thing you said before and it's plainly false, so I'll ask again why you think it's true. — Srap Tasmaner
I place 98 red marbles and 2 blue marbles in an urn; then I blindfold you and have you select a marble from the urn.
Do you, before removing your blindfold, know what color marble you have selected? No. Do you know what color you've likely selected? Obviously. — Srap Tasmaner
First, repeatability in science is not about confirmation of results, it is to check if the results are irrefutable. — Philosophim
You cannot assign the probability of something being real, without first constructing some limitations. — Philosophim
Well, yeah. The point is not knowing whether P and not knowing anything at all about the likelihood of P are really obviously not the same thing — Srap Tasmaner
In essence the repeatability principle is that a single observation is dubious enough to require further corroboration as a confirmatory process. — TheMadFool
The point is not knowing whether P and not knowing anything at all about the likelihood of P are really obviously not the same thing — Srap Tasmaner
Alright, then for both my urn and your urn, we'll say the sample space is { the marble I picked was red, the marble I picked was blue }, so in both cases the chances are 1 in 2 that you picked a red marble. Sound good? — Srap Tasmaner
I admit I haven't quite figured out the best way to describe or explain the fallacy here, but that it is a fallacy should be clear. Your conclusions make it clear something has gone wrong, don't they? — Srap Tasmaner
X makes the observation.....
....A single observation just doesn't suffice.... — TheMadFool
we need to elicit the aid of Y and Z....
......."did you see that?" or "did you hear that?", etc. — TheMadFool
assigning a probability value for O being real. — TheMadFool
if I'm correct, there seems to be serious flaw with the repeatability principle — TheMadFool
First, repeatability in science is not about confirmation of results, it is to check if the results are irrefutable.
— Philosophim
That's the same thing. If refuted then disconfirmed. If confirmed then not refuted. — TheMadFool
There are two options: an observation is real or not real. Ergo, the probability it's real = 1/2 = 50% and the probability that it's not real = 1/2 = 50% — TheMadFool
No, they really aren't. Let me give you an example. Lets say that some one sees the Loch Ness monster in the lake at a distance. Its really just a man in a submarine having some fun. But the first person invites another to stand where they are, and they too are convinced its the Loch Ness monster. Tons of people are invited, and everyone confirms it must be the Loch Ness monster, because that's what they want to see. Such repeatability is confirmation, but useless. Confirmation when someone is trying to refute a claim, like going down to the water for a closer inspection, is when it is useful. — Philosophim
Either I win it, or I don't. That does not mean I have a 50% chance to win or lose the lottery. We know this, because there are very known instances in which I would win, and many known instances in which I would lose. — Philosophim
It is possible it is real, or possible that it is not real. That does not mean it has a 50% probability of being real, or not real. — Philosophim
Better not, lest the gedankenexperiment immediately contract itself. — Mww
A single observation does suffice, at least for the determination that perception has been met with something — Mww
Even a mirage is real — Mww
For a mere observation, I would agree; the repeatability principle is irrelevant. For assigning a name to the observed, given lack of extant knowledge of it by X, Y, and Z, that would require some kind of three-way agreement. Or, they could all just call it what they want, and since there’s only three of them, probably wouldn’t hurt much. But let any one of the three, in turn, tell a forth, and the forth guy is gonna have some trouble. — Mww
Confirmation isn't useless. It is the lifeblood of the scientific method. — TheMadFool
Suppose that you see something extraordinary, say E. you can't believe your eyes, You don't know if what you saw was real or not. What numerical value would you assign to E being real? — TheMadFool
I'll link you an article from an a person who has a Phd in Astrophysics. — Philosophim
There is no numerical value to assign with that limited information. — Philosophim
Probability is all about working with limited information. — TheMadFool
lottery — Philosophim
What do you do with cases in which all people see the same thing but only some of them see something real? — Dawnstorm
So FOR ME it might be useful to think that there is a 50% chance it is true or false, but it doesn't mean there is a 50% chance it is true or false. — Coben
You're right. Some people are more likely to hallucinate than others who, in turn, are more likely to observe the real. That means I have to calculate probabilities for each possible scenario.
However, in my defense, I'd like to point out that the variations are not so extreme as your numbers suggest. The Bell curve should be good enough to allay your concerns - most cluster around the mean. — TheMadFool
What you're ignoring is the likelihood that O is real when X sees it, unreal when Y sees it, and real again when Z sees it, and so on. The more people you add, the greater number of possible events you ignore. — Dawnstorm
The bell curve isn't very relevant to my point. — Dawnstorm
However, remember that I'm only concerned about the principle of repeatability which is basically the belief that the probability of an observation being real increases with the number of observers. — TheMadFool
While there might be a lot going on in between, I only have to consider the worst case scenaro (everyone [all 3, X, Y, and Z] observing something not real) and the best case scenario (everyone [all 3, X, Y, and Z] observing something real). — TheMadFool
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.