Once you have redefined “absolutely zero evidence” to mean “too small for it to be worthwhile for humans to consider it” precisely what language can you use to describe things that, you know, aren’t evidence?
True. The balancing concern is that, in the case of “too small to be worthwhile”, we want people to not consider it, and there are strong biases that make people consider it a labut there’s still a chance!If anything less than “absolutely zero evidence” lets people consider evidence—and overestimating the evidence is worse than underestimating it—then it is preferred language. In that case, it would share the same language as things that aren’t evidence at all.
The balancing concern is that, in the case of “too small to be worthwhile”, we want people to not consider it, and there are strong biases that make people consider it a la but there’s still a chance! If anything less than “absolutely zero evidence” lets people consider evidence—and overestimating the evidence is worse than underestimating it—then it is preferred language.
Controlling behavior by removing the ability to express concepts. Lets call this new language ‘newspeak’. :)
If newspeak increases my utility in dealing with certain agents, I desire to speak in newspeak to them. If newspeak decreases my utility in dealing with certain agents, I desire to speak normally to them. Let me not become attached to the perception of newspeak as intrinsically evil.
I too do all sorts of things with other agents that do not necessarily involve accurate communication. Violence and dirty talk spring to mind as a couple of examples.
Communication transfers ideas from one person to another. If technically correct communication transfers false ideas, it is deception. Accurate communication transfers correct ideas with high fidelity, which isn’t necessarily equivalent to technically correct communication.
How about “less evidence than X”, where X is something ridiculously silly? It seems like it might have the same psychological effects, in which case it would be preferable.
I feel strangely certain that if we started countering “my coin flips coming up mostly heads is evidence of my magic!” with “less evidence for magic than your capacity to continue breathing is”, the kind of person in question would simply write books about how breathing is obviously magical in nature.
True. The balancing concern is that, in the case of “too small to be worthwhile”, we want people to not consider it, and there are strong biases that make people consider it a la but there’s still a chance! If anything less than “absolutely zero evidence” lets people consider evidence—and overestimating the evidence is worse than underestimating it—then it is preferred language. In that case, it would share the same language as things that aren’t evidence at all.
Controlling behavior by removing the ability to express concepts. Lets call this new language ‘newspeak’. :)
If newspeak increases my utility in dealing with certain agents, I desire to speak in newspeak to them. If newspeak decreases my utility in dealing with certain agents, I desire to speak normally to them. Let me not become attached to the perception of newspeak as intrinsically evil.
I too do all sorts of things with other agents that do not necessarily involve accurate communication. Violence and dirty talk spring to mind as a couple of examples.
Communication transfers ideas from one person to another. If technically correct communication transfers false ideas, it is deception. Accurate communication transfers correct ideas with high fidelity, which isn’t necessarily equivalent to technically correct communication.
How about “less evidence than X”, where X is something ridiculously silly? It seems like it might have the same psychological effects, in which case it would be preferable.
I feel strangely certain that if we started countering “my coin flips coming up mostly heads is evidence of my magic!” with “less evidence for magic than your capacity to continue breathing is”, the kind of person in question would simply write books about how breathing is obviously magical in nature.