On the other hand, your estimate may be very close to 50%. Just to be sure, are you positive that the evidence at your disposal is that balanced? It is not stronger one way or another?
This is quite feasible. It’s not because the evidence towards the existence of a god is balanced. It’s because the evidence towards your bias is balanced.
Each time you make an observation, you have to estimate the probability and use that to update your priors. Unfortunately, the probabilities will be in error. If the error were random, the error would be proportional to the square root of the number of observations. Unfortunately, some of the error is bias, and it correlates. The error increases exponentially with the number of observations.
That explanation is kind of shaky, but it can be shown easily. A lot of people are very certain about whether or not there is a god, but a good chunk of them are completely wrong. The error in their confidence is huge.
This is quite feasible. It’s not because the evidence towards the existence of a god is balanced. It’s because the evidence towards your bias is balanced.
Each time you make an observation, you have to estimate the probability and use that to update your priors. Unfortunately, the probabilities will be in error. If the error were random, the error would be proportional to the square root of the number of observations. Unfortunately, some of the error is bias, and it correlates. The error increases exponentially with the number of observations.
That explanation is kind of shaky, but it can be shown easily. A lot of people are very certain about whether or not there is a god, but a good chunk of them are completely wrong. The error in their confidence is huge.