It seems that arguments provide evidence, and Y is evidence for X if and only if P(X|Y)>P(X|¬Y). That is, when X and Y are positively probabilistically dependent. If I think that they are positively dependent, and you think that they are not, then this won’t convince you of course.
The best arguments confer no evidence, they guide you in putting together the pieces you already hold.
Yeah, aka Socratic dialogue.
Alice: I don’t believe X.
Bob: Don’t you believe Y? And don’t you believe If Y then X?
Alice: Okay I guess I do believe X.
The point is, conditional probability doesn’t capture the effect of arguments.
It seems that arguments provide evidence, and Y is evidence for X if and only if P(X|Y)>P(X|¬Y). That is, when X and Y are positively probabilistically dependent. If I think that they are positively dependent, and you think that they are not, then this won’t convince you of course.