Gathering evidence IRL may be expensive. When picking a stopping point, ask whether the collected evidence compels the conclusion, not whether it allows the conclusion.
Check your motivations. Are you ignoring fast cheap evidence because you already have a comfortable conclusion? Are you holding out for expensive slow evidence because the conclusion is uncomfortable?
A probabilistic model can take a few hits. But we sometimes assume a true theory can have no failures and a false theory can have no success.
When investigating, pile up both evidence and counter-evidence and pit them in a fair fight. Sometimes we double-count our preferred evidence.
Mistakenly agreeing to disagree may be caused by: missing knowledge, long inferential distances, indescribable intuitions, emotional attachment, self-pride.
People can stand what is true, for they are already enduring it.
Yudkowsky is losing me here. Maybe I’m conflating a theory with a theorem. Finding a counter-example is sufficient to disprove a theorem.