@St_Rev The LW style is untested, and as well reasoned techniques usually fail, it's also assumed that this one will until evidence exists.
-
-
Replying to @CoreXXIII
@CoreXXIII More relevant@meaningness writing on the matter: http://meaningness.com/metablog/how-to-think …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@CoreXXIII Vast oversimplification: *If you can reduce the problem to a calculation*, use Bayes. But that first step is almost everything.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CoreXXIII
@St_Rev An when there is a wealth of data, the data is often so inconsistently produced that statistical comparison is useless in general.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CoreXXIII
@CoreXXIII Yeah. LWers like to invoke...agh, forget the name, it's the theorem about rational agents w/access to same data agreeing1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@CoreXXIII Ignoring the fact that it's essentially only relevant to gods and oracles.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
@CoreXXIII Newcomb's only a paradox because its premise is inconsistent. Can't be arsed to pick it apart at the moment though.
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.