>The problem with your argument is that it's a tautology. If in fact the statement by dcurtis is the first efflorescence of the problem, your line of thinking would reject it anyway
No its not; it's defining a probability. This report is most likely false, because it would be unlikely for this to be the first instance of it. It's not defining a logical proposition -- that's just you extracting more gaurantees from the statement than what was actually specified. It's not if this then that, it's if probably this, then probably that.
And it's valid to state it "feels false", if only because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- the same way it's valid to not significantly consider the claim "I saw an alien" stated on its own. Yes, there is a possibility it's true, and yes, its not valid to declare it false only on the basis that aliens are involved, but it would be unreasonable to assume that possibility it is true is significant based on the claim alone.
It is perfectly valid to assume it's false, because the likelihood of the alternative is low. It is not valid to declare it false for the same reasoning; but no one in this chain did such a thing.
>If you think something "feels false" but you have no evidence for it, that's not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.
That's true, but an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence is also not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.
and from the original post...
>I consider it worrying that a claim wholly lacking evidence is getting so much attention.
That is, the conclusion reached by twitter is not well-reasoned, which gives kevindong the well-reasoned conclusion: it's probably false.
>It's classifying the first instance as false.
>This *FEELS* (not saying it is) like a false claim.
I'm not clear how you can read this as anything other than a probability. It says nothing about the premise, and it clearly specifies that the conclusion has not been [definitively] classified.
Otherwise, if that ain't the money-quote, I don't know what you're reading but it's not what I'm reading.
No its not; it's defining a probability. This report is most likely false, because it would be unlikely for this to be the first instance of it. It's not defining a logical proposition -- that's just you extracting more gaurantees from the statement than what was actually specified. It's not if this then that, it's if probably this, then probably that.
And it's valid to state it "feels false", if only because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- the same way it's valid to not significantly consider the claim "I saw an alien" stated on its own. Yes, there is a possibility it's true, and yes, its not valid to declare it false only on the basis that aliens are involved, but it would be unreasonable to assume that possibility it is true is significant based on the claim alone.
It is perfectly valid to assume it's false, because the likelihood of the alternative is low. It is not valid to declare it false for the same reasoning; but no one in this chain did such a thing.