@Meaningness e.g. one doesn't use quantum field theory to predict the motion of ordinary objects, but any shortcuts one uses to predict...
-
-
Replying to @GapOfGods
@Meaningness ...such motion must yield accurate results in any universe described (on a much deeper level) by quantum field theory2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee , but Bayesianism is <1% of a theory of understanding.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness it's a complete theory of how to solve a particular class of problems (figure out posteriors given priors and evidence)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee But that is a trivial class of problems, as is proven by the fact that the complete theory is "divide the two numbers".4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness it doesn't matter how "trivial" it is if people get it grossly wrong a lot1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness i would also agree that most rationality mileage is not directly related to differences between bayesianism and frequentism3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee My point is rather that probability of any stripe is a tiny part of math/science/rationality.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness explicit probabilities are a small part, but uncertainty in general is a large part2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@tipsfromkatee My concern is that the probabilistic framework is actively misleading when considering many kinds of uncertainty.
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.