Probability frameworks are one way of dealing with uncertainty; of dealing with predication & classification. It's not the only way though.
-
-
Replying to @reiver
@reiver ⊼ (Charles Iliya Krempeaux) Retweeted @reiver ⊼ (Charles Iliya Krempeaux)
… There are some areas of the Internet where people are philosophical Bayesians. I wonder if they are aware of this.https://twitter.com/reiver/status/682239809536933888 …
@reiver ⊼ (Charles Iliya Krempeaux) added,
2 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AlleleOfGene
@AlleleOfGene Do you happen to remember the references to those proofs?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @reiver
@reiver Usually it is phrased along the lines "If we want to have degrees of belief, they must act like this..." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formal-belief/ …2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AlleleOfGene
@AlleleOfGene@reiver Most alternatives to prob. would be better w/ intuitionistic prob., given their stated desires https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1082637807 …2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic
@ProofOfLogic Assuming I accurately understand what you are trying to say here, then I don't see why they'd be "better"… cc:@AlleleOfGene2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @reiver
@reiver@AlleleOfGene I don't want to limit myself to defending probability, but the idea is it has many nice properties alternatives lack.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
@reiver @AlleleOfGene Most alternatives give up those properties unnecessarily, when we could keep them & address the concerns raised.
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.