timtyler comments on Taking Ideas Seriously - Less Wrong

51 Post author: Will_Newsome 13 August 2010 04:50PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (257)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Perplexed 27 August 2010 08:19:12PM 1 point [-]

Observers can put probabilities on the truth of theories. They can do it - and will do it - if you ask them to set odds and prepare to receive bets. Quantifying uncertainty allows it to be measured and processed.

Scurfield missed his chance here. He should have asked when it becomes the case that those bets must be paid off, and offered the services of a Popper adept to make that kind of decision. Of course, the Popperite doesn't rule that one theory is true, he rules that the other theory is refuted.

Comment author: timtyler 28 August 2010 06:22:11AM *  0 points [-]

Short time limits don't mean that agents can't meaningfully assign probabilities to the truth of scientific theories - they just decrease the chances of the theories being proven wrong within the time limit a bit.

Comment author: Perplexed 28 August 2010 03:01:21PM 1 point [-]

What is a time limit? Do actual bets on this sort of thing in Britain stipulate a time limit? As a Yank, I have no idea how betting 'markets' like this like this actually work.

Comment author: gwern 28 August 2010 05:58:40PM *  0 points [-]

Prediction markets/betting markets like Intrade or Betfair pretty universally set time limits on their bets. (Browse through Intrade sometime.) This does sometimes require changing the bet/prediction though - from 'the Higgs boson will be found' to 'the Higgs boson will be found by 2020'. Not that this is a bad thing, mind you.