Given Eliezer’s massive post of references for why the standard interpretation of the conjunction fallacy is correct, the burden of proof is on you if you want to argue with it. Go and read the research!
A. Some guy wrote a massive post defending the standard interpretation of the conjunction fallacy.
B. Some guy wrote a massive post defending the standard interpretation of the conjunction fallacy AND his massive post is evidence for said interpretation.
Why do people keep on replying like this to my comments? It doesn’t make any sense. If I’m arguing for B and you’re not arguing for A then it doesn’t matter if P(A)>P(B). It can still be the case that P(B) is high!
EDIT: Especially if A is a know historical fact which we have easy access to. If P(A)=1 then that’s no restriction on B at all!
Given Eliezer’s massive post of references for why the standard interpretation of the conjunction fallacy is correct, the burden of proof is on you if you want to argue with it. Go and read the research!
Which is more probable?
A. Some guy wrote a massive post defending the standard interpretation of the conjunction fallacy.
B. Some guy wrote a massive post defending the standard interpretation of the conjunction fallacy AND his massive post is evidence for said interpretation.
Why do people keep on replying like this to my comments? It doesn’t make any sense. If I’m arguing for B and you’re not arguing for A then it doesn’t matter if P(A)>P(B). It can still be the case that P(B) is high!
EDIT: Especially if A is a know historical fact which we have easy access to. If P(A)=1 then that’s no restriction on B at all!