"I had the notion that - it's pointing at - a form of unLawfulness where people try to get out of being caught at being bad at predicting, by making up excuses afterwards.  Let's say there's a guide who claims to be very good at unravelling dungeons, so you take them along on a delve, and you get to a splitting path that can go six different ways, with some clues.  One person who's already been past that level knows which of the six paths leads down to the next level and which five lead into trapped rooms.  And they ask the person who claims to be a good guide, which path is correct?  And the guide could, if you told them a path, come up with an argument for why it was obviously that path.  But if you don't tell them which path, and they come up with six arguments for all six paths, then even if those arguments all sound tremendously intelligent and clever, they obviously don't know anything useful."

"If you ask them for probabilities on the six paths, instead of arguments, you can just score them and that's it, that's how well they did and how much, uh, reward they should get paid.  So putting numbers and probabilities on things is Lawful and arguing about them isn't."

"I had the notion that - it's pointing at - a form of unLawfulness where people try to get out of being caught at being bad at predicting, by being clever at arguing about it.  Let's say there's a guide who claims to be very good at unravelling dungeons, so you take them along on a delve, and you get to a splitting path that can go six different ways, with some clues.  One person who's already been past that level knows which of the six paths leads down to the next level and which five lead into trapped rooms.  And they ask the person who claims to be a good guide, which path is correct?  And the guide could, if you told them a path, come up with an argument for why it was obviously that path.  But if you don't tell them which path, and they come up with six arguments for all six paths, then even if those arguments all sound tremendously intelligent and clever, they obviously don't know anything useful."

"If you ask them for probabilities on the six paths, instead of arguments, you can just score them and that's it, that's how well they did and how much, uh, reward they should get paid.  So putting numbers and probabilities on things is Lawful and arguing about them isn't."

"I had the notion that - it's pointing at - a form of unLawfulness where people try to get out of being caught at being bad at predicting, by being clever at arguing about it.  Let's say there's a guide who claims to be very good at unravelling dungeons, so you take them along on a delve, and you get to a splitting path that can go six different ways, with some clues.  One person who's already been past that level knows which one of the six paths leads down to the next level and which five lead into trapped rooms.  And they ask the person who claims to be a good guide, which path is correct?  And the guide could, if you told them a path, come up with an argument for why it was obviously that path.  But if you don't tell them which path, and they come up with six arguments for all six paths, then even if those arguments all sound tremendously intelligent and clever, they obviously don't know anything useful."

"If you ask them for probabilities on the six paths, instead of arguments, you can just score them and that's it, that's how well they did and how much, uh, reward they should get paid.  So putting numbers and probabilities on things is Lawful and arguing about them isn't."