I was asked why Bayesianism is not an epistemology and what is alternative. Answers in http://meaningness.com/probability-and-logic … & http://meaningness.com/metablog/how-to-think … …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Probability theory is unable to *talk about* most topics, much less explain them. http://meaningness.com/probability-and-logic … explains, with minimal formalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
From the meta-systematic pov, “an epistemology” is impossible. No system can encompass all ways of knowing, used in different domains.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Aha! I think I finally see what we disagree about.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch
That’s great! The meta-systematic pov is central to what I’m (slowly) writing about, so it’s an important distinction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
So, is the meta-systematic pov/epistemology formalizable?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch
Presumably not. (No strong proof, but strong heuristic evidence.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
What about Church-Turing? ("Strong heuristic evidence" sounds suspiciously Bayesian... :p)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GrumplessGrinch
I don’t think C-T is relevant. Explaining why not is too complex for a tweet.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
But, the view is certainly not that people have super-Turing abilities, or any other such woo.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
I didn't expect so. Curious how you get there, though.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.