Can you recommend an overview of everything wrong with probabilistic epistemology? I haven’t found one. There’s lots of papers that say “this particular objection is fatal, so why don’t you guys stop pretending,” but maybe no compendium of those?
-
Show this thread
-
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.”
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow 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!)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow 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 …3 replies 4 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Meaningness @ArtirKel
Good heavens. Have philosophers never read about how Bayes nets work? Uncertain observations are technology at this point; you send up a non-extreme lambda message. (And this doesn't even violate probability theorems qua theorems, as so many approximations understandably do.)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @ArtirKel
I discussed Bayes nets in that piece. Jaynes didn’t understand logical quantifiers. He explicitly says he thinks they are philosophical bs and he’s going to ignore them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you ignore quantifiers, then yeah, the math is really simple.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ArtirKel
Jaynes did sometimes dismiss problems outside his mastery, which was a flaw. That said, MIRI has done pioneering work on applying probability to logical sentences and relaxing the assumption of logical omniscience. http://intelligence.org/files/LogicalInduction.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This is an interesting paper, and not relevant to Jayne’s misunderstanding.
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.