Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Complete ignorance should not be modeled as equiprobability.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Assigning equal probability to all outcomes under ignorance produces contradictions (e.g., lottery example).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The classical interpretation is only plausible in contexts of evidential symmetry by design, such as gambling games.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Jaynes's transformation group invariance shows equiprobability is justified only when a problem exhibits formal symmetry under permutation of outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Epistemic ignorance about God's existence lacks the structural symmetry required: the hypothesis space is not closed under any natural permutation group.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore equiprobability under theological ignorance violates the very criterion that licenses the principle of indifference in well-posed cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Keynes argued that probability is a logical relation between propositions, and where evidence is absent, the relation is indeterminate rather than uniform.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Indeterminate probability, as formalized in Walley's imprecise probability theory, permits a range [0,1] rather than the single value 0.5.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modeling complete ignorance as the interval [0,1] is strictly more epistemically faithful than collapsing it to a point estimate of 0.5, which itself encodes a substantive belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.