If I observe that a burger I purchased is not good, I would make a conjecture as to why that might be so. Is it because the meat was off because it wasn’t properly stored, for example. Depending on my hypothesis, I could then attempt to draw conclusions about the other two burgers bought at the same time. So, I would be testing my hypothesis with the next burger. If I find that the next burger is good, then I would need to adjust my hypothesis based on the new observation. Perhaps just one batch of meat was bad, but the next burger was made with a different batch. If the second burger was also bad, then that would likely confirm my hypothesis so far, but the third burger might be good, thus requiring an adjustment again. And in fact none of those observations confirm the hypothesis directly, unless I take further action and ask questions about the storing of the meat, say. Perhaps the first burger was actually bad because someone dropped the patty on the floor.

So, the observation, that the first burger is bad, is real, which leads to a conjecture, which leads to testable refutation opportunities (if one is still keen to buy burgers from the same place after getting one bad one).

A Hobson's choice then. — TheMadFool

I don't know anyone called Hobson. Intersubjectivity is a very simple and useful concept, allowing to bridge subjectivity and objectivity somewhat. Which is what you are talking about.

I know what's wrong with you calculus. Your observers are no observer at all if they only are correct half of the times. If they can't do better than a coin toss, their power of observation is null. One can tie as many dead horses to a carriage as one wants, it's not going to help pull the carriage. Scientific observers need to do much better than 50/50 for repetitions to work and increase experiment power. And if you set your risk of error to a more realistic 10%, then it works.

That would be the wrong thing to do. Landing on a side is more likely. — TheMadFool

Ta-da! At long last! That is why your whole line of thinking is wrong.

This is not how probability calculus works. — TheMadFool

You are absolutely right. Because there is no such thing as "probability calculus". Probablity and statistics are in the finite numbers branch of mathematics, not in the branch of Calculus.

Anyone who knows anything about how to calculate probabilities, knows this.

So how come YOU call ME ignorant?

One can tie as many dead horses to a carriage as one wants, it's not going to help pull the carriage. Scientific observers need to do much better than 50/50 for repetitions to work and increase experiment power. And if you set your risk of error to a more realistic 10%, then it works. — Olivier5

That's precisely the problem. I once drew analogy between the belief that more observers increase the likelihood of an observation being real and a group of people with poor vision as witnesses. If each person with poor vision is unacceptable as a witness, how can all of them together be any better?

Ta-da! At long last! That is why your whole line of thinking is wrong. — Dfpolis

You're forgetting that there are only two options, both equally likely, viz. real or not real.

You are absolutely right. Because there is no such thing as "probability calculus" — god must be atheist

I need to look that up. I swear I read it somewhere. Thanks.

That's precisely the problem. — TheMadFool

So agreement does happen on this site, once in a long while. That’s good news. :-)

I am sorry you are uneducateable.

I am sorry you are uneducateable. — Dfpolis

A worthy challenge for an educator worth his salt, don't you think?

So agreement does happen on this site, once in a long while. That’s good news. :-) — Olivier5

:grin:

A worthy challenge for an educator worth his salt, don't you think? — TheMadFool

No one can put knowledge in a closed mind.

No one can put knowledge in a closed mind. — Dfpolis

:ok: