coolguy8472 This is just like saying if 1,000,000 people each try to eat a fully grown elephant in 2 seconds the probability of someone doing so is greater than if 5 people try. Wrong! The probably is always 0.

When it comes to the lottery the chance of winning, or guessing that someone will win, is the same for everyone. Guesswork doesn’t change this, it only a\narrows the margin down that SOMEONE will guess correctly.

Witnessed experiences (illusionary of otherwise) are not in the same ball park. — I like sushi

There are piecewise functions involved to weed out these absurdities I'm sure. Like if someone said a trillion people confirmed something verses a trillion and 1 people confirmed something, which is more likely to be true. Well there aren't even that many people on Earth.

Regarding your absurdity example, it's conceivable that there exists a person with super powers that can devour an elephant in 2 seconds. We see feats like that performed in fictional writings. The likelihood is some low number like 10^-999999999999999999999999999. But more probable than square circles I would estimate.

Mathematically speaking they call such things “impossible” not “improbable” - like jumping to the moon. It is also impossible for sand to be randomly blown around and construct a sculpture of my face. Entropy doesn’t allow this.

It's my best guess. Because the claim that claims more eyewitnesses has more persuasive power to some people. Double and triple hearsay is a persuasive enough topic for courts to at least discuss the issue before rejecting the idea of it being valid persuasive evidence. — coolguy8472

Hearsay only provides evidence of the overheard (or otherwise recorded) statement being made. It's not evidence for the content of the claim.

It's my best guess. — coolguy8472

Some people? What do you think? What are your reasons? Isn't this why you opened a discussion on a philosophy forum?

Double and triple hearsay is a persuasive enough topic for courts to at least discuss the issue before rejecting the idea of it being valid persuasive evidence. — coolguy8472

Look up what "hearsay" means. "Double hearsay" would be something like "My cousin heard from her hairdresser that X won the lottery." Your case is completely different.

Mathematically speaking they call such things “impossible” not “improbable” - like jumping to the moon. It is also impossible for sand to be randomly blown around and construct a sculpture of my face. Entropy doesn’t allow this. — I like sushi

Statistically speaking yes. Impossible is 0. Improbable is near 0.

Hearsay only provides evidence of the overheard (or otherwise recorded) statement being made. It's not evidence for the content of the claim. — Echarmion

Why can't evidence of the overheard also be considered evidence of the content of the claim?

Some people? What do you think? What are your reasons? Isn't this why you opened a discussion on a philosophy forum? — SophistiCat

I was interested in what others had to say, not myself. I don't find it convincing. Others do. Often times when there's stark contrasts on both sides then the truth comes out I find out that there was some truth on both sides. So I figure the likelihood on average is alittle higher when someone makes a claim with more sources to back it up versus otherwise.

Look up what "hearsay" means. "Double hearsay" would be something like "My cousin heard from her hairdresser that X won the lottery." Your case is completely different. — SophistiCat

Someone says that someone else will say that they have a winning ticket. That's called double hearsay.

Isn't the Bayesian position that there is no qualitative distinction between assumptions and knowledge? It's all just probabilities with different values. — Echarmion

Even frequentist probability doesn't require a qualitative distinction between assumptions and knowledge, for assumptions can be represented as "pseudo frequencies" to augment actually obtained frequencies and applied to a given likelihood function. No frequentist statistician would reject to this, provided one can provide a real-world justification for those pseudo-frequencies.

The reason Bayesian probability has been so controversial is in it's non-frequentist interpretations and usage of "prior" distributions, for when "prior" distributions are non-controversially applied they ironically represent objective posterior knowledge. And it makes no sense whatsoever to interpret flat priors as representing the state of ignorance of an experimenter, unless that prior is redundant in playing no role whatsoever in subsequent inferences.

If an assertion of ignorance was to influence the calculation of an expectation, then by definition the assertion isn't of ignorance but of knowledge or assumption.

Why can't evidence of the overheard also be considered evidence of the content of the claim? — coolguy8472

By definition, a hearsay witness has no information on the actual event in question. Hearing a claim does not make that claim more or less likely (unless the claim is about being overheard).

The reason Bayesian probability has been so controversial is in it's non-frequentist interpretations and usage of "prior" distributions, for when "prior" distributions are non-controversially applied they ironically represent objective posterior knowledge. And it makes no sense whatsoever to interpret flat priors as representing the state of ignorance of an experimenter, unless that prior is redundant in playing no role whatsoever in subsequent inferences.

If an assertion of ignorance was to influence the calculation of an expectation, then by definition the assertion isn't of ignorance but of knowledge or assumption. — sime

Sorry, that's a bit too technical for me. In what way is a prior supposed to represent the ignorance of the experimenter? Why does this ignorance influence the expectation?

Statistically speaking yes. Impossible is 0. Improbable is near 0. — Coolguy

Impossible is “as good as 0” not just, and only, zero. Improbable is a very low chance not an insignificantly minute chance (that is called “impossible”).

It sure is strange terminology compared to day-to-day speech!

By definition, a hearsay witness has no information on the actual event in question. Hearing a claim does not make that claim more or less likely (unless the claim is about being overheard). — Echarmion

I would say instead "has no certain information on the actual event in question" it has possible information of the actual event in question. Because the claim on its own cannot scientifically verified need not imply that it follows that the likelihood of the hearsay being true is unchanged.

Is "Person 2"'s claim have a slightly higher probability of being correct due to the number of eye witnesses they claim are available? I'm just talking about the claim on its own, without doing further investigation like questioning the witnesses or any other analysis — coolguy8472

I think that numbers matter here. 10 witnesses make for a stronger case than just 1 or no witness at all. Multiple accounts that agree in content make it objective because it is unlikely that so many people are wrong about something. One person alone could be mistaken, hallucinating, deluded, etc.

However it seems that the value of witnesses is relative. 10 witnesses may be better than one/no witness but a 100 witnesses is better than just 10 witnesses. I think the number of witnesses should fit the nature of the claim. More out-of-the-ordinary the claim the more witnesses required.

I think that numbers matter here. 10 witnesses make for a stronger case than just 1 or no witness at all. Multiple accounts that agree in content make it objective because it is unlikely that so many people are wrong about something. One person alone could be mistaken, hallucinating, deluded, etc.

However it seems that the value of witnesses is relative. 10 witnesses may be better than one/no witness but a 100 witnesses is better than just 10 witnesses. I think the number of witnesses should fit the nature of the claim. More out-of-the-ordinary the claim the more witnesses required. — TheMadFool

The motivations for lying play a factor. Someone probably wouldn't have a reason to convince me that they won the lottery unless it was a scam of some kind. It reminds me of this:



All things being equal though I do think that more eyewitnesses make the claim slightly more likely. Unfortunately this is why people exaggerate or make stuff up to deceive others. For that reason I'd also say the more unlikely the claim and the more incentive to the lie, the less of an improvement the odds become when claiming more evidence within the claim.

Here's what I remember from my logic studies:

To assess the credibility of a claim made by a person the following conditions need to be satisfied:

1. Appropriate credentials: the person claiming something must have an established reputation in the area the claim is about.

2. Appropriate area of expertise: a physicist must make claims only about physics for example

3. Lack of bias: no ideological, monetary, etc. reasons for making a claim

4. Expert consensus: experts in the area the claim is about must agree on it. I think this is where your question comes in.

I would say instead "has no certain information on the actual event in question" it has possible information of the actual event in question. Because the claim on its own cannot scientifically verified need not imply that it follows that the likelihood of the hearsay being true is unchanged. — coolguy8472

Hearsay evidence can increase the reliability of the witness, and thereby increase the likelihood of the claim being true. But it's not about the substance of the claim, that's what "hearsay" means.

All things being equal though I do think that more eyewitnesses make the claim slightly more likely. Unfortunately this is why people exaggerate or make stuff up to deceive others. For that reason I'd also say the more unlikely the claim and the more incentive to the lie, the less of an improvement the odds become when claiming more evidence within the claim. — coolguy8472

You still haven't explained how this is supposed to work. Just claiming to have witnesses is just another claim.

Hearsay evidence can increase the reliability of the witness, and thereby increase the likelihood of the claim being true. But it's not about the substance of the claim, that's what "hearsay" means. — Echarmion

I'm talking about in probability theory, not about practical persuasion in a court of law. If you were to:
1) grab the population of people who ever claimed to have won the lottery and have an eyewitness to back them up who actually won the lottery
2) divide it by the total number of people who claimed to have won the lottery and have an eyewitness to back them up
3) grab the population of people who claimed to have ever won the lottery and have 10 eyewitnesses to back them up who actually won the lottery
4) divided it by the total number of people who claimed to have won the lottery and have 10 eyewitness to back them up
5) compare these ratios
6) I think you would have a slightly higher ratio of people who claim more eyewitness testimony also have a slightly higher percentage of being correct in their claim

You still haven't explained how this is supposed to work. Just claiming to have witnesses is just another claim. — Echarmion

Because the entities making the claim are people. They're not 8-balls. People make observations and can accurately report those observations. While there's still the possibility of error and deception involved if you analyzed the psychology or statistics of it all I think you would find the claims that claim to have more evidence are more likely to be true than not.

I'm talking about in probability theory, not about practical persuasion in a court of law. If you were to:
1) grab the population of people who ever claimed to have won the lottery and have an eyewitness to back them up who actually won the lottery
2) divide it by the total number of people who claimed to have won the lottery and have an eyewitness to back them up
3) grab the population of people who claimed to have ever won the lottery and have 10 eyewitnesses to back them up who actually won the lottery
4) divided it by the total number of people who claimed to have won the lottery and have 10 eyewitness to back them up
5) compare these ratios
6) I think you would have a slightly higher ratio of people who claim more eyewitness testimony also have a slightly higher percentage of being correct in their claim — coolguy8472

This is pure speculation though. There is no data suggesting it, and as speculative psychology it's not terribly convincing. Possible, yes, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Yea as I said its my best guess. This source may help https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2017/08/gut-truth