10 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBoo-hoo. That poor reader should refer to the part in my post where I do explain the term. If the reader has trouble with 'minimal endorsement', then perhaps he would prefer the term 'found more likely than not'. But perhaps the reader would have trouble with 'found', in which case we may want to try the term 'judged'. It really is unfortunate that translations within natural languages are by their very nature circular.
With your provided translation, the reader who does not understand the term believe has no other choice, since he does not understand "I believe that it is 60% probable that P." And he can't stop at that level - he has to keep applying the translation, layer after layer.
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrI offer this new translation:
Your translation sucks. It precludes people from believing propositions which result from brute causal forces (where there is no assessment). We often just come to believe things, without ever having assessed their likelihood.
"I believe that P" should be read as "I take it to be the case that it is more likely than not."
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI don't understand what you mean by 'take it to be the case'. Is this some sort of relation you can stand in to the propositional content of a mental representation? Sounds eerily familiar.
I offer this new translation:
"I believe that P" should be read as "I take it to be the case that it is more likely than not."
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrAt least it's an attempt at progress. Maybe he will understand that term; if not, we'll try another one. Yours uses a term that is already known to be misunderstood.
What about the poor reader who doesn't understand the term 'assessed'? What is it, precisely, to assess that P is the case?
If LH doesn't understand assess, we could try, estimate, or agree, or evaluate.
10 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrYes! And if it's one that LH knows by this name, now he knows that believe is a synonym and can now understand "I believe that P."
I don't understand what you mean by 'take it to be the case'. Is this some sort of relation you can stand in to the propositional content of a mental representation?
If not, maybe he knows it by a different name. but we know he doesn't know it by the name "believe."
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe misunderstanding is not one of terms, fundamentally, but of the relationship between evidence, justification, and belief formation. You can try and substitute out other terms for 'believe', but the same problems will arise.
At least it's an attempt at progress. Maybe he will understand that term; if not, we'll try another one. Yours uses a term that is already known to be misunderstood.
If LH doesn't understand assess, we could try, estimate, or agree, or evaluate.
10 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesO.K. henceforth let "I believe that P" be shorthand for "I take it to be the case that P". Now, I'm sure, our problems will be solved.
Yes! And if it's one that LH knows by this name, now he knows that believe is a synonym and can now understand "I believe that P."
If not, maybe he knows it by a different name. but we know he doesn't know it by the name "believe."
EDIT: Wow, I'm snarky tonight. I'm going to drink some beer and go to sleep. 'sta luego.
10 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrIs there any essential relationship between evidence and belief formation, since beliefs can be imposed on one with brute force without regard for evidence? To say that you believe gives no information about any evidential evaluations you have performed, and vice versa.
The misunderstanding is not one of terms, fundamentally, but of the relationship between evidence, justification, and belief formation.
10 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI would prefer if it were shorthand for "I take it to be the case that P is more likely true than false."
O.K. henceforth let "I believe that P" be shorthand for "I take it to be the case that P". Now, I'm sure, our problems will be solved.
EDIT: Wow, I'm snarky tonight. I'm going to drink some beer and go to sleep. 'sta luego.
I honestly don't know what snarky means. It's a term I've never used. At any rate, it's been a pleasure as always. If this is snarky, then I like it.
10 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt depends on whether you're an internalist or an externalist about justification.
Is there any essential relationship between evidence and belief formation, since beliefs can be imposed on one with brute force without regard for evidence? To say that you believe gives no information about any evidential evaluations you have performed, and vice versa.
O.K. now to drinking.
11 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzp-values quantify a conditional probability, namely, of a result being obtained in the absence of a real effect. If they are lower than a consensually agreed criterion, such as an alpha level of .05, then it can be concluded, provisionally and fallibly, that an effect is real. However, p-values do not quantify the simple probability of that effect being real or not. They provide information for making dichotomous decisions about whether effects are real or unreal, not information about the exact likelihood that those effects are real or unreal. I believe this renders the estimates you provided fallacious.
Normally, in science, for a single testable hypothesis the value of p we use (the probability of the result we have occurring by chance is 5% (i.e. 0.05). This is typically the minimum statistical likelihood that we require.
Theories are built on numerous, independant investigations, thus the p-value of a theory being wrong is p=0.05^n-1, where n is ...[text shortened]... 99. Therefore the chances of the theory being incorrect is somewhere around 1 in 1.5 *10^129.
12 Mar 06
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole"However, p-values do not quantify the simple probability of that effect being real or not."
p-values quantify a conditional probability, namely, of a result being obtained in the absence of a real effect. If they are lower than a consensually agreed criterion, such as an alpha level of .05, then it can be concluded, provisionally and fallibly, that an effect is real. However, p-values do not quantify the simple probability of that effect being ...[text shortened]... those effects are real or unreal. I believe this renders the estimates you provided fallacious.
Yes it does. A p-value gives the probability, based on the current dataset, of an effect being simply down to randon variation or not. If the situation (for example, the mean mass of two groups of plants) is not caused by random variation (based upon the current data set) then it must be caused by a real effect (provided that you're not a numpty and designed your experiment properly).