Part of the thing here, & it's a point feminists make, generally, is to do with who is doing the doing. It's men waging war, men doing the killing. Of course, you can find exceptions - Eleanor of Aquitaine was pretty feisty - but overwhelmingly men were active, women passive.
The snake you come across either is venomous or it isn't - probability doesn't come into it. What does it mean to say of a snake that isn't venomous that there's a 90% chance it's venomous?
-
-
The question of how you'd be wise to behave has to do with the characteristics of the distribution of all snakes, not the particular snake you come across. If you don't know anything about the particular snake, then the characteristics of the distribution is all you've got.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The snake either is or isn't venomous. It's either 100% venomous or 0% venomous. But until you know that, you're reasonable to treat the snake with caution, since your only data point is that it's a snake, and 99% of them are venomous. Right?
-
Yes, but that's a statement about distribution of all snakes, not the particular snake you're looking at. You're saying, Uh oh, given that 90% of snakes are dangerous, I'd better be careful (not there's a 90% chance this particular snake is dangerous - it either is or isn't).
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.