@sebastiansalek I don't get the logic of your argument. Is it "These very rich people will be affected. So don't worry about the much less rich people who will also be affected."?
@JoWolffBSG If you go to public school, Oxbridge, and then the Bar, you can spend almost your entire life in almost identical surroundings, down the the hall, chapel, library, and so forth. (And to a considerable extent the same people, though less so now.)
Your strategy of incremental sanctions doesn’t work. Cannot work…
That’s why 212 members of Parliament demand a special #EUCO meeting to decide on full sanctions immediately!
My speech👇🏻
@OptimalBayes@MaartenvSmeden How does the point about conditional probabilities refute objectivism about probabilities? You can have objective conditional probabilities.
@GuyLongworth Okay, sorry! Yes, I agree that our judgments of plausibility/implausibility are themselves not always reliable. And an idea should be given a fair shot before we decide, on careful reflection, that it is implausible and, so, that this a strike against it.
@GuyLongworth The precise degree to what extent implausibility indicates falsity is unclear. But clearly it does to some non-negligible degree. (It certainly does so in the sciences.) Rarely are philosophical theories falsified. We discard theories that the arguments render implausible.
@Heskers@StAndrewsPhil@univofstandrews Katherine was a wonderful person and a wonderful philosopher. (My best philosophy was written by Katherine. Our joint paper was part of my REF2014 submission. But it wasn’t good enough to be part of Katherine’s. Her solo work was much better.)