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
I’ve been asked “If not Bayesianism, then what?” before and answered in http://meaningness.com/metablog/how-to-think …pic.twitter.com/TxqNgNHWFB
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
We actually don’t know how people know things. We do *know* it’s not via trivial bits of math. We need to find out!pic.twitter.com/ODlktRpBKJ
1 reply 3 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I realize this is reductionist in the extreme, but my bedrock epistemology has always been "trial and error."
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler @Meaningness
"Keep what works, discard what doesn't" is the rule behind every process that generates knowledge.
5 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler @Meaningness
The operative (and human-complete) word here is "works." But the "keep/discard" part of the rule is simple and universal.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KevinSimler @Meaningness
(This is my attempt at a tweet-sized summary of Popper/Deutsch/Bartley.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yeah, I know only Popper of those, but I think his story is simplistic and does not match what scientists actually do.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
It may not match scientists' day-to-day practice, but it matches science at some level of description (the relevant lvl, IMO).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler
I guess that depends in part on what your goals are. There is “why should we believe Science?” which Popper addresses, >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
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.