I guess its not a clue of the example, but its definitely not formulated right. If the hypothesis is ordinary (how are we distinguish ordinary from extraordinary) I am not suppose to ask for the evidence? What about my own evidence? I mean, I should evaluate a prior evidence that he is a bad employee considering that I knew the guy and I thought that he is okay (he is not just a random worker I guess)
I feel like this page, in particular the example, is suggesting that "if the probability of X is > 50%, act as though X were true." This is clearly (to me) untrue, and/or unwise. For instance, suppose you have a box, and a priori there is a 90% chance it contains $10, and a 10% chance it contains a letterbomb. The odds are clearly in favor of $10, but I'd question the sanity of anybody who tried to open the box (without precautions, extra checks, etc.). AFAICT, even when X is probably true, cost/benefit can change what the best course of action is. It seems like this deserves at least a mention.
Hmm... is this a corollary so much as a converse or an addendum? It would be a corollary (by being the contrapositive) if the statement were "Only extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
I guess its not a clue of the example, but its definitely not formulated right. If the hypothesis is ordinary (how are we distinguish ordinary from extraordinary) I am not suppose to ask for the evidence? What about my own evidence? I mean, I should evaluate a prior evidence that he is a bad employee considering that I knew the guy and I thought that he is okay (he is not just a random worker I guess)
I feel like this page, in particular the example, is suggesting that "if the probability of X is > 50%, act as though X were true." This is clearly (to me) untrue, and/or unwise. For instance, suppose you have a box, and a priori there is a 90% chance it contains $10, and a 10% chance it contains a letterbomb. The odds are clearly in favor of $10, but I'd question the sanity of anybody who tried to open the box (without precautions, extra checks, etc.). AFAICT, even when X is probably true, cost/benefit can change what the best course of action is. It seems like this deserves at least a mention.
Hmm... is this a corollary so much as a converse or an addendum? It would be a corollary (by being the contrapositive) if the statement were "Only extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".