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!
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!