Hacker News Reader

I don't like wording "arrive at contradictory conclusions", because it implies the creation of differences in beliefs.

I'd rather frame it as "maintain contradictory preconceptions". And the cause of this I would say is a lack of information: Information capable of distinguishing between H1-H5

View on HN

Or... now I am not that sure anymore. What if Person A believe in H0:97%, H1: 2%, H2: 1%, and Person B believe in H0:97%, H1: 1%, H2: 2%. They have quite similar beliefs, at least by some measures. But if H0 is ruled out, then suddenly their beliefs will be very different.

This doesn't seem particularly illustrative without some context. or significant figures.

I'm all for contrived examples when they are used to help understand, but this feels like an artificial comparison.

How does this contradict your earlier comment? I think it's still valid: Person A believes H1 (real psychic), Person B believes H2 (talented fraud). The question now is how to get them to agree. And the answer is: design a better experiment, such that fraud is not practical, and see what happens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com