The paradox is adequately solved by noting the difference between claimed and actual probabilities. In other words, assume an agent promises to give you money with “97%” likelihood; the real probability is whatever the actual likelihood is, multiplied by the probability that the agent won’t defect on the deal, multiplied by the probability that nothing else will go wrong.
Admittedly, claimed certainty isn’t actual certainty either, but in practice “100%” tends to be much closer to 100% than “97%” to 97%.
The paradox is adequately solved by noting the difference between claimed and actual probabilities. In other words, assume an agent promises to give you money with “97%” likelihood; the real probability is whatever the actual likelihood is, multiplied by the probability that the agent won’t defect on the deal, multiplied by the probability that nothing else will go wrong.
Admittedly, claimed certainty isn’t actual certainty either, but in practice “100%” tends to be much closer to 100% than “97%” to 97%.
Could you elaborate? I don’t see how it solves the paradox. What percentage chance would you need to reasonably approximate a “real” 97%?