Philosophers Debate p(doom): Subjective Probabilities Fine, but Beliefs Must Be Defensible
Stanford philosopher Seth Lazar defended subjective probabilities like p(doom) while arguing the era of influencing the public with a single doom number is over, as researcher xuanalogue proposed a novel contractarian argument for fairness constraints on probabilistic inference.
2026-09-18 ~ 2026-09-18 · 4 related posts
- Stanford philosopher defends p(doom): subjective probabilities are perfectly legitimate — sethlazar · 2026-09-18
- Philosophers clash over P(doom): subjective probabilities vs publicly justifiable beliefs — xuanalogue · 2026-09-18
- sethlazar: citing p(doom) numbers to sway public opinion is an outdated 2023 debate — sethlazar · 2026-09-18
- Contractualist case for fairness constraints on probabilistic inference, contra Bayesian decision theory — xuanalogue · 2026-09-18