Can you recommend an overview of everything wrong with probabilistic epistemology? I haven’t found one. There’s lots of papers that say “this particular objection is fatal, so why don’t you guys stop pretending,” but maybe no compendium of those?
Hmm I’d say crippling but not fatal. Probabilism works well enough, in enough situations that it’s not wrong enough to fix until something big goes wrong. It’s mathematized superstition in a way, since by construction it stops short of including a causation metaphysics
-
-
Probabilistic *methods* can work very well, *if* you understand the domain well enough to spply them effectively. By “probabilism” I mean the claim that the framework is universally applicable.
-
Yeah I got that. It might also be isomorphic to AGI. There seem to be 2 kinds. Wink-and-nudge sociopath probabilists who know what they’re doing and living dangerously setting up others for taking the fall, and naive/clueless ones who genuinely don’t get the risk.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think the thing missing from this discussion is, “for what.” Wrong…for what? Fatal…for what? Defective…for what?
-
Yes, it’s wrong as magic because
#duh. No one asks, “does penicillin work?” Because we know that’s a nonsense question. The better questions are, “in what contexts does penicillin solve problems better than other solutions and at what cost?”
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.