[totalZero]

You're conflating two different parent comments; I'll take them separately.

If you think something "feels false" but you have no evidence for it, that's not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.

>it's defining a probability.

This is not true. It's classifying the first instance as false.

[setr]

>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.

[zepto]

> If you think something "feels false" but you have no evidence for it, that's not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.

We can’t determine that.

Whether it is a strong basis for reasoning depends on the person’s priors, which may be very strong.

Until we ask them about their priors, we simply don’t know.