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
“Strong heuristic evidence” only sounds Bayesian to people who are stuck in that very limited concept 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.