@Meaningness i would also agree that most rationality mileage is not directly related to differences between bayesianism and frequentism
-
-
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 I don't think so. You run into limited computational/cognitive resources fast.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness yes if you're explicitly modelling them, no if you're just thinking about them in the abstract, as a normative standard1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee Cognitive resources are limited even if your model is entirely informal.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness i can abstractly consider infinite-dimensional hilbert spaces without having infinity variables in my head1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@tipsfromkatee Yes but real world situations are actually hard to think about and shortcuts are not often apparent.
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.