News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Bugs in Our Mindware (2016). Parent comment

Re:The Bugs in Our Mindware (2016) by derangedHorse on Thursday July 19, 2018 @08:18AM (#17565537)
Calculating the probability that A and a sequential event B will happen rather than inferring the probability of A given an a posteriori event B might be more intuitive to bring up in this argument.

An easy way to explain how the conclusion was derived is just by considering that we have to multiply probabilities to calculate the probability of a conjunction of events, and since most probabilities are below 1, the number will always be less than or equal to a single event.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Bugs in Our Mindware (2016) by s-shellfish on Thursday July 19, 2018 @08:19AM (#17565545)
This doesn't take people being able to choose how to think into account.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Bugs in Our Mindware (2016) by derangedHorse on Thursday July 19, 2018 @08:23AM (#17565573)
The logic is sound so I'm not sure how "being able to choose how to think" changes anything
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Bugs in Our Mindware (2016) by s-shellfish on Thursday July 19, 2018 @08:45AM (#17565670)
Go back to the original article. Now think about it being used to disprove everything you think about things instead of it being used to prove everything you think about things.
[ Parent | on HN ]