- #1

Trance

- 11

- 0

There are two epistemic peers whose mental faculties are of equal standing and who have access to all the same relevant evidence.

The two go to dinner

Case 1:

One week later, the first man, A, states that their dinner consisted of Chinese food

The second, B, disagrees and states that their dinner consisted of Indian food

Case 2:

One week later A, states that their dinner consisted of Chinese food

B is never consulted on the issue

In each of these cases there is some possibility of one or more misleading events occurring which would cause one or both parties to misremember their meal and to hold an erroneous belief about the subject.

Is the chance of a misleading having affected A the same in each case?

If not, how and why do the probabilities differ?

I've thought about it and have concluded that it is essentially a variation on a (weighted) coin toss problem. The probability of either person being correct is analogous to that of a weighted coin showing (say) heads, since there are only two outcomes (incorrect or correct) that would correspond to the two outcomes of the coin (heads or tails)

So, let's assume that A and B are both 80% correct, usually. That would correspond to a coin being 80% likely to fall on heads. If this is the case, then in the first case, since it has been revealed that the pair have conflicting answers, we can conclude that one of them is wrong (that one of them has flipped a tails), and they can therefore both not be correct. The crucial point, I think, is that we cannot tell which one is wrong. In the coin flip, the flippers could only be notified that they have both flipped differently, and not the specifics as to who flipped heads and who flipped tails. Since they are both equally likely to be correct/heads (at 80%), then it is impossible to tell which is mistaken and so we must use the base rate of 80%. In other words, it makes no difference, and A is 80% likely to be correct in both cases.

Is this reasoning sound? Any help is greatly appreciated.