I'm genuinely confused by this -- how does it refute "the scientific method"? Yes, most of the time you're trying to fix broken shit, and labs are more like workshops than anybody acknowledges, but don't lab scientists "try changing one thing and see if that fixes it"?
"shit, the mysterious phenomenon was due to a difference in the manufacturing process" comes from outside, it's not like you had a preexisting model with a node for the manufacturing process. you don't have a sample space, you have to have "room" to "add stuff from the void".
-
-
Yes, this is a major feature of how and why rationality in general works. Rationality always depends on “closed-world assumptions” (or “small-world assumptions” in statistical parlance) that are actually untrue, but enable rational operation to the extent that they hold.
-
So a major aspect of meta-rationality is opening up the details of the closed-world assumptions and asking how and why and whether they hold, and if altering them in a particular situation might make your rational inference process go better.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That's why a single probability model doesn't cover everything; you keep having to respond to new stuff from the Void and change the ontology of "what do I mean by an event in my sample space."
-
Yes! Yes yes yes! This is what “meta-rational statistics” means, and is a major topic of my book!
- 1 more reply
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.