 The last kind of probability we're going to look at is plausibility. Now I'm just going to give you a little bit of warning. Plausibility is a mess. It's a, oh, seems like we can't do without plausibility and, well, when we rely upon it too much or the raw circumstance, it gets us in trouble. Now plausibility, well, it's just that the probability determined by what's plausible. So it's your intuition, it's your gut instinct. Sometimes it's referred to as common sense, right? So it's common sense that randomly hitting people upside the head is at least rude, if not just out and out and immoral, right? You don't do that sort of thing, right? We've got people's, we've got notions of rights, we've got notions of self-autonomy, we've got notions of harm. Okay, you know, all these notions, by the way, are fed by plausibility. It's pretty intuitive what counts as harmful. It's pretty intuitive what counts as a right, or at least we have intuitions about that. So yeah, it's what's intuitive. It's that intellectual instinct you have, right? Well, specific meanings and essences, right? These are really useful, really useful. Plausibility is really useful for coming up with a lot of these abstract notions and pretty much, I mean, you need plausibility in order to give us our abstract notions so that we can do the rest of this work. So for example, we're not going to use logical possibility to determine whether logical possibility is good evidence in a particular circumstance. No, you got to use plausibility, right? Because logical possibility would say, well, what? I don't know if we're going to be silly. Well, either you use logical possibility, frequency possibility, propensity and plausibility and give us circumstance. Our logical possibility is one out of four, so there's a 25% chance that we use logical possibility. No, that doesn't work. That's completely implausible. So we can't just completely do without plausibility. We have to rely upon it. And it is that extent to which we find the conclusion to be plausible, right? Or you know, pretty much yeah. So we have a notion of rights, rights centered around self-autonomy and self-ownership. Okay. That's a pretty plausible definition of rights. Cool, right? All on board. And then from that, we would determine whether any given act that you've performed is within your rights or not. So it's within my rights to, you know, wear a hat. It's not within my rights to take somebody else's hat and steal it from them. No, that violates autonomy and self-ownership. All right. Now, dirty little secret about plausibility, something that people don't, at least they don't widely talk about it. Despite the fact that we call it common sense, it's not common, right? Plausibility is entirely subjective. I hate to say it, but it's true. A lot of people are going to get angry at me for saying it. But the fact of the matter is there is variation amongst people about what's plausible, you know? We can start bringing up a list of topics. I'm not going to do that. And I'm not saying that, you know, therefore plausibility is bad, but plausibility has its uses. And sometimes that's all we have, but there is going to be disagreement. There is going to be difference. Those plausible is subjective. Despite the fact that we talk about it being objective, it's not, right? So, you know, I talk about whether it's, you know, this notion of self-ownership is plausible. It's like, well, yeah. But then there's a, you know, there are going to be groups of people say, well, of course, you, of course, this is wrong. Of course, your notions about self-ownership are wrong because there is no self-ownership, right? And then there's reasons for that. And it has to do with pretty substantive arguments regarding the plausibility of self-ownership. I'm not going to go into that here. So plausibility, yeah, plausibility is subjective. That doesn't mean it doesn't give us any truth. I'm not saying that. We can have arguments about that if you like, but that's outside the purview of this course. And sometimes, like I said, sometimes it's all we have, right? That's all we have. Now we don't, we're not going to, you know, plausibility is not objective. It is subjective. But we will have a lot of intersubjective agreement. So there's a lot of use to be had with plausibility, you know, within people that have the same notions. Okay. Now, having said that, you know, plausibility does have its uses. It really falls to the wayside with other notions of probability and other circumstances, right? You don't get to use plausibility to replace frequency. You don't get to use plausibility to replace propensity. You don't get to use plausibility to replace logical possibility. You know, when those, right? So you don't get to use plausibility when it comes to whether you're going to win the next dice roll, right? I really feel like I'm going to get double sixes this time. No, right. That feeling does not, does not, does not remove the logical, the probability to determine by what's logically possible. It doesn't get to replace or remove what, you know, you're talking about frequency, right? I really feel like, I really feel like I'm going to make that basket this time, despite the fact that I missed the last 20 times. I'm really going to make this. No, you don't get to replace that frequency with plausibility, right? You don't get to replace propensity with plausibility. The others, frankly, they're just not useful to determine our abstract notions. And, you know, I'm not saying that's bad for those and plausibility supreme. But when we're talking about these different kinds of evidence, they are different, right? They have their uses in their own contexts. There isn't one that's just supreme over the rest. And there are going to be situations where one is just not simply as good compared to the others. So we've talked about the, we've got the four kinds of evidence, right? We've got, we have a, you know, where we have all the available evidence versus the absent evidence, whether we're using the complete evidence, both the supporting and the defeating, right? And the, and if you're using the right kind of evidence, that will determine the strength of the evidence and that will determine the strength of the argument, the strength of the conclusion. All right, let's work, let's try some, let's try using this evidence in different sorts of arguments. See what happens.