I strongly disagree with the premise that we haven’t gotten the second side of the story.
I actually believe that the Bayesian evidence for what the second side of the story is is quite strong.
As Ben explains, Nonlinear was given three hours to provide their side of the story. I would strongly expect there to be a Pareto Principle thing that applies here. In the first hour, I’d expect that—let’s just make up numbers -- 70% of the thrust (ie. the big idea, not necessarily every little detail) of the “second side of the story” would be provided. Then in the next two hours, 90% of the thrust would have been provided. And from there, there continue to be diminishing returns.
Emerson did say that Ben’s paraphrasing was a “Good summary!”. There are caveats and more details discussed here, but even after taking those caveats and details into account, I still believe that Nonlinear’s response to their opinion of the paraphrase would have been very different if there were in fact important things about the paraphrase that were wrong or omitted.
Similarly, I would expect that, if there were important things here that were wrong or omitted, Nonlinear would write a comment expressing this within a day or two. As ElliotJDavies says, the accusations have happened for over a year, and so you’d think that Nonlinear would be able to provide the thrust of their response relatively quickly.
Note: In her post, Kat does discuss the point that even a relatively easy to dispute claim took them hours to refute (tracking down conversations and stuff). However, a simple “Here are the top five important and cruxy things that we believe are wrong or omitted. It will take some time to collect all of the evidence, but here is a quick description of the main things that we anticipate providing.” probably shouldn’t take more than a few hours.
There is a bunch more Bayesian evidence than this, but I think these three bullet points get the point across and are a good starting point.
I suppose people might dispute what “second side of the story” really means. My thoughts on this are that something along the lines of “received strong Bayesian evidence for the second side of the story” is the right place to draw the boundaries around what it means to have “gotten” the second side of the story.
Suppose that your friend Alice tells you about an argument she had with her partner Bob, and how Bob was being very contentious or something. It depends on the context of course, but I could imagine Alice’s telling you this not being very strong Bayesian evidence in favor of Bob actually acting very contentiously. In which case, I think it would make sense to say that you haven’t “gotten the second side of the story”. I don’t think that’s the type of thing that is happening with Nonlinear though.
I strongly disagree with the premise that we haven’t gotten the second side of the story.
I actually believe that the Bayesian evidence for what the second side of the story is is quite strong.
As Ben explains, Nonlinear was given three hours to provide their side of the story. I would strongly expect there to be a Pareto Principle thing that applies here. In the first hour, I’d expect that—let’s just make up numbers -- 70% of the thrust (ie. the big idea, not necessarily every little detail) of the “second side of the story” would be provided. Then in the next two hours, 90% of the thrust would have been provided. And from there, there continue to be diminishing returns.
Emerson did say that Ben’s paraphrasing was a “Good summary!”. There are caveats and more details discussed here, but even after taking those caveats and details into account, I still believe that Nonlinear’s response to their opinion of the paraphrase would have been very different if there were in fact important things about the paraphrase that were wrong or omitted.
Similarly, I would expect that, if there were important things here that were wrong or omitted, Nonlinear would write a comment expressing this within a day or two. As ElliotJDavies says, the accusations have happened for over a year, and so you’d think that Nonlinear would be able to provide the thrust of their response relatively quickly.
Note: In her post, Kat does discuss the point that even a relatively easy to dispute claim took them hours to refute (tracking down conversations and stuff). However, a simple “Here are the top five important and cruxy things that we believe are wrong or omitted. It will take some time to collect all of the evidence, but here is a quick description of the main things that we anticipate providing.” probably shouldn’t take more than a few hours.
There is a bunch more Bayesian evidence than this, but I think these three bullet points get the point across and are a good starting point.
I suppose people might dispute what “second side of the story” really means. My thoughts on this are that something along the lines of “received strong Bayesian evidence for the second side of the story” is the right place to draw the boundaries around what it means to have “gotten” the second side of the story.
Suppose that your friend Alice tells you about an argument she had with her partner Bob, and how Bob was being very contentious or something. It depends on the context of course, but I could imagine Alice’s telling you this not being very strong Bayesian evidence in favor of Bob actually acting very contentiously. In which case, I think it would make sense to say that you haven’t “gotten the second side of the story”. I don’t think that’s the type of thing that is happening with Nonlinear though.