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?
-
-
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.
-
Major problem with probability in epistemology is that the *real* interpretation becomes hypothetical. It's not how I (and I suspect other real people) reason under uncertainty.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Also, stats-as-epistemology is only 100 years old. Statistical inference is still a shiny new toy compared to induction, deduction, etc.pic.twitter.com/ruE6iiWJdN
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.