= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Johnicholas comments on Formalizing informal logic - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (22)
Agreed.
I have some notion that an argument tree could be translated or incorporated into a Bayes net model. There's an intuition (which we share) that, given links with a particular imperfect strength, arguments consisting of a few long chains are weaker than arguments that are "bushy" (offering many independent reasons for the conclusion). A Bayes net model would quantify that intuition.
In a perfect world, bushiness would indeed imply high reliability. Unfortunately in our world the different branches of the bush can have hidden dependencies, either accidental or maliciously inserted - they could even all be subtly different rewordings of one same argument - and the technique won't catch that. So ultimately I don't think we have invented a substitute for common sense just yet.