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
Mm. That’s certainly an important principle, but by itself doesn’t seem like it goes very far.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
Why doesn't it get you very far? It gets you everywhere! It gets you to Bayesianism, for example — because B-ism works :)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler @Meaningness
Maybe it is too reductionist, i.e., not even addressing the same concerns as Bayesianism/etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don’t think it’s too reductionist, just that by itself it doesn’t explain anything. What do you try, how do you decide k/d?
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.