Talk:Probabilistic argumentation

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

"appeal to probability" paragraph seems logically wrong

I think this statement is misleading:

"Probabilistic argumentation systems encounter a problem when used to determine the occurrence of Black Swan events since, by definition, those events are so improbable as to seem impossible. As such, probabilistic arguments should be considered fallacious arguments known as appeals to probability."

A couple of logical falsehoods here, IMO: 1. black swans do not exist in every question. So a probabilistic argument might not even have to deal with any black swan. 2. A probabilistic argument that fails to account for certain possibilities does not meet the definition of "appeal to probability" as stated in Appeal to probability, which is "the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it is possibly the case".

If the message is that a probabilistic argument typically fails to account for certain possibilities and can therefore lead its reader into a false sense of certainty about the impossibility of possibilities, then that is true but it is also true of every argument dealing with a complex real-world question. So it is kinda trivially true and saying these arguments should be considered fallacious doesn't seem helpful. YetAnotherBunny (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]