1/ mashing up two tweets first:https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1285238626800898050 …
-
-
4/ So you need a second dimension, which is your confidence in a conclusion. ...and if your confidence is under some threshhold (maybe 80 or 90%) you can (and should) simplify "I think X but I could be wrong" to just "I don't know".
Show this thread -
5/ > gonna be ? ALWAYS WAS astronaut.jpghttps://twitter.com/sonyasupposedly/status/1285242001659621377 …
Show this thread -
6/ so, anyway, this mode of thinking appoaches
@eigenrobot "I refuse to have opinions". I don't go quite that far - on topics that are important, and which I either have axiomatic views, or have evidence based views that I am > 90% confident on, I'll have an opinion.Show this thread -
7/ but, really, epistemic laziness - the desire to KNOW FOR SURE - is the root of many sins. Admit that things are complicated. Admit that you can't be sure.
Show this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
is this gonna be a thread about reasoning under uncertainty?

-
Reasoning under uncertainty, or, as I like to call it, reasoning.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Even if you managed to find an infallible scientist, he’d most likely tell you THE “SCIENCE SAYS X (under these specific conditions and with these specific variables held constant with values we can only estimate)”
-
I once had an argument about the Shannon Limit in this vein: (Him) “You’re exceeding Shannon here given your bandwidth and SNR” (Me) “Here’s why Shannon doesn’t apply in the way you’re using it.” But an old engineer gave me a ROT *throws information theory text at him*
End of conversation
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.