Right, but it's the "a measure ceases to become a valid measure when it becomes a target" thing. Everyone is chasing each other in circles. Nobody actually knows anything. The people that pretend to are full of shit.
-
-
Replying to @Alephwyr
i mean, that's why the only escape is to try to find targets that invalidate measures (science, baish!)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
I'm not sure what you mean. The domain seems anti-inductive to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @averykimball
Hypotheses aren't inductive. Science is generally inductive, at least until it isn't. And then it is again, just in a different way. Science is a perpetual alternation between inductivity and originality.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
induction is logically incoherent, science can't work with logically incoherent parts it's more an alternation of *deduction* and originality
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
It's not really logical induction that's performed, it's statistical reasoning that resembles logical induction via similar but distinct things in cluster space. Logic is the dumb low fidelity essentialist simplification. It still basically works and drives things in most cases.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
logic underlies statistical reasoning, if you neglect it, you have ever-greater drift from the Real
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
Big Yud thinks logic is a special case of probabilistic reasoning rather than vice versa, and I understand that perspective: certainly the real world is not easily cut at the joints with logic.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Alephwyr
there's tacit cutting of joints in statistical reasoning- the categories and proxies used to measure into those categories are fundamentally logical statistical reasoning is blind without logic, and errors are impossible to identify without it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I don't know that I'm good enough at math to have an opinion. I bet Yud or his more intelligent acolytes would have an answer to this though.
-
-
Replying to @Alephwyr
they literally can't, it has been brought up and they failed
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @averykimball
lol based. Alright. But you can at least concede that it takes pages and pages of logic to even express the same things that can be expressed with a few expressions or equations in probability or stats.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show 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.