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?
-
-
This seems to be more a problem with our current academic incentives then probability theory. I think any theory could be used in place of PT if it's just being used to get papers.
-
Yes, I agree with that strongly. And also, there isn’t an alternative to probability theory… which is why it persists. It would be convenient if there were a way to gain knowledge without understanding, but there isn’t one.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Philosophers of science and statisticians have both been pointing out for ~70 years that probability doesn’t work like that. But it’s too convenient for scientists to go on pretending.
-
Traditional (mathematical) probability has its place, but in very specific circumstances for which it was designed. Theory makes good sense for probabilities as frequencies and degrees of belief (via betting quotients). But this only makes sense if the interpretation is real.
- 8 more 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.