is that, like, true? there's gotta be a no-free-lunch in there somewhere.
-
-
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
Well a standard Bayesian story is that, yes, your priors don’t matter, because they wash out with sufficient evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I mean if you keep looking at non-black things, and they keep turning out to be non-ravens, eventually won't you start to suspect
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
No. You wouldn’t. Just empirically: no, no one ever does that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
take it to the extreme: what if you see every non-black thing
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
-
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
Who cares? We need an account of actual science in the real world. An account of how science would work if you were God is useless (and probably meaningless).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
I'm trying to make a philosophical point here, pointing out physical difficulties is sort of missing the point
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman @Meaningness
epistemology isn't going to fundamentally work differently based on how many non-black things I can inspect
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, it fundamentally is. An epistemology that doesn’t take into account finite access and finite inferential power is useful only to God.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
if there are a finite number of non-black things you can have finite access and still inspect them all
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.