some LW posters are confident in both (1) and (2), some are confident in neither of (1) and (2) while others are confident in exactly one of (1) and (2)
Logically, this is tautological. I think you’re saying that there don’t seem to be many who are completely convinced that both (1) and (2) are untrue. I think that’s right; both claims are somewhat plausible.
Curious: do people prefer “neither A nor B” or “neither of (A and B)”?
Nitpick: it’s not quite tautological, as he asserts that at least one* person exists in each category. It is only a tautology that everyone fits into one of them, not that they’re all non-empty.
*or two, depending on your interpretation of ‘some’.
I don’t think this is a Nitpick—I think this explains why the statement is included in the original post in the first place—to point out that there is a wide variety of position that LW readers hold on these statements.
Right, but the quoted text is consistent, so, if you grant me that “some” means >=0, my original statement would have been correct. Of course, “some” implies >0, which I missed.
Logically, this is tautological. I think you’re saying that there don’t seem to be many who are completely convinced that both (1) and (2) are untrue. I think that’s right; both claims are somewhat plausible.
Curious: do people prefer “neither A nor B” or “neither of (A and B)”?
Nitpick: it’s not quite tautological, as he asserts that at least one* person exists in each category. It is only a tautology that everyone fits into one of them, not that they’re all non-empty.
*or two, depending on your interpretation of ‘some’.
I don’t think this is a Nitpick—I think this explains why the statement is included in the original post in the first place—to point out that there is a wide variety of position that LW readers hold on these statements.
Nice subtlety (at least one).
The problem is that “confident in” has an ambiguous negation. “not confident in A” is different than “confident in not-A”.
Right, but the quoted text is consistent, so, if you grant me that “some” means >=0, my original statement would have been correct. Of course, “some” implies >0, which I missed.