Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonous  Remster Quote: |
And what evidence have you to support that belief, viz. the belief that of two beliefs that fit the same evidence, the simpler of the two is more likely to be true?
| OK, here is an generalized example of when it would be true that the simpler belief is more likely to be true. Consider to axiomatic arguements, one with two axioms A and B and another with three axioms A, B and C. The probability the axioms are true is unknown. So we say that the probability of A is 1/x, the probablity of B is 1/y and the probability of C is 1/z. Furthermore, lets say that for the conclusion to be true the axioms the arguemment is based on must also be true. In this case, the probability that the arguement based on two axioms is true is 1/xy and the probability that the arguement based on three axioms is true is 1/xyz. Since 1/xy > 1/xyz, it follows that the arguement based on less assumptions is more likely to be true. Quote: |
The point I'm driving at here is the same point as I was driving at with Romansh: that we all have some unevidenced beliefs.
| That is quite a claim. It sounds to me that you are denying the existance of skeptics. Not just extreme skeptics that deny everything but also skeptical people that merely require the appropriate justification to hold a belief. |
Nous ... I like your end point but can't agree with how we got there.
Taking your two (three) axioms A B (C): should we not also include the probabilities of there being no other axioms say O
(AB) and O
(ABC)
The two probabilities become:
1/xyO
(AB) and 1/xyzO
(ABC)
So we are no further ahead ....