No, I meant as the survivor/culprit
-
not sure how 1 has bearing, but i can address 2 (because it relates to his naive induction) positive evidence has no bearing on the validity of a theory- so a *bunch* of evidence doesn't prove *anything*- it's *thwarted expectations* that *always* raise things into awareness
His induction is somewhat naive but not as naive as this. I suggest rereading the appropriate portions of the sequences.
-
-
uh, this is simply popperian epistemology i suggest you read conjectures and refutations (jk, you don't need to read shit, if i can't produce a persuasive case for it, i won't ask you to do laborious reading of something that might be horseshit)
-
I've read Popper Selections and Logic of Science, and so has Yudkowsky. I know you are referencing Popper. Yud directly responds to Popper, and while his responses aren't as comprehensive as I'd like them to be they do get out of the hole you're trying to throw him in.
- 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.