No, but it is based on your prior experience. In my book that counts as "data".
-
-
Replying to @Ugnudabul @o_guest
I guess you can define data however you like, but that's not typically how the word is used.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Ugnudabul @o_guest
I just said it. And since you qualified it with "in my book" I know to some extent you agree.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Ugnudabul @richarddmorey
seriously though if you care about this "belief" issue I do think you should read some Bayesian books.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Like maybe Causality by Pearl? Something on the philosophy though for sure as I think that's the issue?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @richarddmorey
maybe I will. But surely you agree that life is neater when we reserve the term "belief" for unfalsifiable ideas?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ugnudabul @richarddmorey
the concept of unfalsifiability is within the Popperian belief system regarding the scientific method. Not all
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
scientists believe in unfalsifiability as a guiding principle for science. There is Kuhnian, Lakatosian and more.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Even a logical positivist – which I genuinely really hope you aren't – believes in logical positivism.
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.