@Meaningness it doesn't matter how "trivial" it is if people get it grossly wrong a lot
-
-
-
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 -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@Meaningness and you can think about not-explicitly-probabilistic uncertainty with probabilistic tools2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee > errors in formulating the problem space (ie possible events, possible causes, etc). Prob theory takes that as given.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness so all one needs to do is think about a sufficiently large space of possible models, right?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee > both that it captures the relevant distinctions and that its size is tractable.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness sure, so one can have a bayesian theory of optimal problem space formulation1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@tipsfromkatee Positing that such a theory is possible is not the same as having one. Would love to see one if you develop it!
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.