Problem is, for each objection, probabilists say “that’s not fatal, we can deal with it (in special cases at least) by adding a whole lot of extra complexity to our story.”
-
-
Show this thread
-
Collecting all the nearly-fatal objections to probabilistic epistemology in one place would issue a more difficult challenge: can you accommodate all these simultaneously? I don’t want to do this job, but it would be a major service if someone did. (Or has!)
Show this thread -
Courtesy
@ArtirKel, here is a list of eight (nearly?) fatal problems with (Bayesian) probabilism, with brief explanations. It would be great to have something like this, but more comprehensive, and with more discussion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/#PotPro …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn’t this Taleb’s lifelong mission? Though I think Cosmo Shalizi is best-in-class. Takes a probabilist to catch a probabilist generally,
-
Lots of people understand that probabilism is wrong. And, lots of people write about how it is wrong. What seems missing is a comprehensive list of all the ways it’s wrong.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
does this have anything to do with your twitter back-and-forth with Yudkowsky? :D
-
also,I'd be interested in what you find. In the new edition of the newsletter, I'm calling the 20th century medical gaze the "statistical-inferential" gaze(c/o Foucault), and analyzing the gaze and pharma's episteme, what it sees as a problem and solutions it develops as a result
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
“Empire of Chance” and everything else by Gerd Gigerenzer.http://stevo.link/fxqt0
-
That looks very good, thank you!
End of conversation
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.