Emil O W Kirkegaard

And so people point out Taleb's mistakes.

https://twitter.com/pjlehner/status/1165003066397155328?s=20 …

Following this very healthy and humble axiom in our epistemology, we can say your line of reasoning/logics become incoherent. You will communicate inconsistently by definition of our axiomatic epistemology that we agree on.

These are Socrates' words btw.

I have no problem saying "I don't know" when I feel like I don't know something. But I'm not going to say "I don't know" when I think I'm completely justified in claiming knowledge based on sufficient evidence.

Our discussion was exactly about the fact that you can't justify sufficient. We disagree with your method. You said "nobody claims that the relationship between the concepts are strong ones" (more or less). Now you say this evidence is sufficient. It is clearly not.

Oh my god. The relationship doesn't have to be strong for us to have sufficient evidence that there is some relationship.

This is similar to the distinction between the size of an effect (say, R²), and the p-value.