Re: Problem 2:
Take an even probability distribution involving your feelings and your roommate’s feelings on housework (and on who’s emotionally biased). You have no reason to treat your and your roommate’s feelings as asymmetrically indicative (unless unbiased indicators have told you that you’re especially above- or below- average at this sort of thing). It’s like the thermometers, again.
Re: Problem 3:
Keep your belief in atheism. Your evidence against a Christian god is way stronger than any evidence provided by your roommate’s assertion. Despite the superficial symmetry with Problem 2, the prior against the complex hypothesis of a Christian god is many orders of magnitude stronger than the prior against you being wilfully mistaken about the housework—and these orders of magnitude matter.
(Though note that this reasoning only works because such “extraordinary claims” are routinely made without extraordinary evidence; psychology and anthropology indicate that p( your roommate’s assertion | no Christian god) is relatively large—much larger than a simplicity prior would assign to p(Christian god), or p(flying spaghetti monster).
No, problems 2 and 3 are symmetrical in a more than superficial way. In both cases, the proper course of action is to attempt to conduct an unbiased evaluation of the evidence and of the biases affecting each of you. The difference is, in problem 3, we have already encountered and evaluated numerous nearly identical situations, so it is easy to come to the proper decision, whereas in problem 2, the situation could be new and unique, and missing background information about the effects of bias on the two individuals and the accuracy of their predictions becomes important.
The description of both problem 2 and 3 indicates a possible biasing in both participants. Its therefore reasonable to cool down first, and then check the evidence.
In problem 3 roommate might point out valid criticisms about biases one might have, while still being wrong on the question itself. Either way its not rational to argue when in heat.
Problem 2: Given the stated conditions (“you feel strongly that you could never have such biases” is unlikely in my case, but taking it as fact), I would tentatively interpret my roommates remarks as indicating his frustration rather than my disposition. However, I would take the probability of being mistaken as high enough that I would attempt to find some way to defuse the situation that would work either way—most likely, arbitration from a mutually trusted party.
Problem 3: I would quickly review what I know about the debate, and conclude that I have received no additional evidence one way or the other. I would continue to be confident in my naturalist worldview.
After reading your answers:
Problem 2: I notice that you interpret “you feel strongly that you could never have such biases” differently to how I interpret it—I would not feel thus without an observed track record of myself supporting that conclusion. My actions are scarcely changed from those implied by your judgement, however.
Problem 2: I’d work on finding out what criteria we were using. In general, I believe that I can tell when I’m going off balance. I’m not sure if I can test this, but I get the impression that most people have no clue at all about when they’re going off balance. I will also note that even if I feel I’m going off balance, there may not be anything I can do about it in the short run.
Problem 3: I’m an agnostic, not an atheist. That being said, I would notice that the Christian is using a circular system of proof, and not agree with them.
Re: Problem 2: Take an even probability distribution involving your feelings and your roommate’s feelings on housework (and on who’s emotionally biased). You have no reason to treat your and your roommate’s feelings as asymmetrically indicative (unless unbiased indicators have told you that you’re especially above- or below- average at this sort of thing). It’s like the thermometers, again.
Re: Problem 3: Keep your belief in atheism. Your evidence against a Christian god is way stronger than any evidence provided by your roommate’s assertion. Despite the superficial symmetry with Problem 2, the prior against the complex hypothesis of a Christian god is many orders of magnitude stronger than the prior against you being wilfully mistaken about the housework—and these orders of magnitude matter.
(Though note that this reasoning only works because such “extraordinary claims” are routinely made without extraordinary evidence; psychology and anthropology indicate that p( your roommate’s assertion | no Christian god) is relatively large—much larger than a simplicity prior would assign to p(Christian god), or p(flying spaghetti monster).
No, problems 2 and 3 are symmetrical in a more than superficial way. In both cases, the proper course of action is to attempt to conduct an unbiased evaluation of the evidence and of the biases affecting each of you. The difference is, in problem 3, we have already encountered and evaluated numerous nearly identical situations, so it is easy to come to the proper decision, whereas in problem 2, the situation could be new and unique, and missing background information about the effects of bias on the two individuals and the accuracy of their predictions becomes important.
The description of both problem 2 and 3 indicates a possible biasing in both participants. Its therefore reasonable to cool down first, and then check the evidence.
In problem 3 roommate might point out valid criticisms about biases one might have, while still being wrong on the question itself. Either way its not rational to argue when in heat.
Before reading your answers:
Problem 2: Given the stated conditions (“you feel strongly that you could never have such biases” is unlikely in my case, but taking it as fact), I would tentatively interpret my roommates remarks as indicating his frustration rather than my disposition. However, I would take the probability of being mistaken as high enough that I would attempt to find some way to defuse the situation that would work either way—most likely, arbitration from a mutually trusted party.
Problem 3: I would quickly review what I know about the debate, and conclude that I have received no additional evidence one way or the other. I would continue to be confident in my naturalist worldview.
After reading your answers:
Problem 2: I notice that you interpret “you feel strongly that you could never have such biases” differently to how I interpret it—I would not feel thus without an observed track record of myself supporting that conclusion. My actions are scarcely changed from those implied by your judgement, however.
Problem 2: I’d work on finding out what criteria we were using. In general, I believe that I can tell when I’m going off balance. I’m not sure if I can test this, but I get the impression that most people have no clue at all about when they’re going off balance. I will also note that even if I feel I’m going off balance, there may not be anything I can do about it in the short run.
Problem 3: I’m an agnostic, not an atheist. That being said, I would notice that the Christian is using a circular system of proof, and not agree with them.