I enjoyed the discussion of the objective vs subjective probability distinction! It's a helpful one, but often neglected.
One short comment. As it is, the argument seems to overreach. As far as empirical knowledge is concerned, there’s always a non-zero chance, either objectively or subjectively, that something is possible. In other words, since empirical knowledge is defeasible, at the limit it’s impossible to say that something is impossible. What seems to matter more in this case isn’t the uncertainty itself, but the stakes. Igniting the atmosphere is a very bad outcome indeed!
I enjoyed the discussion of the objective vs subjective probability distinction! It's a helpful one, but often neglected.
One short comment. As it is, the argument seems to overreach. As far as empirical knowledge is concerned, there’s always a non-zero chance, either objectively or subjectively, that something is possible. In other words, since empirical knowledge is defeasible, at the limit it’s impossible to say that something is impossible. What seems to matter more in this case isn’t the uncertainty itself, but the stakes. Igniting the atmosphere is a very bad outcome indeed!