= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
komponisto comments on Which parts of philosophy are worth studying from a pragmatic perspective? - 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 (29)
I understand that this is the standard story, but don't find it satisfactory; hence was presenting my own "deeper" explanation (which I still regard as tentative).
After all, based only on what you've said, a frequentist could also be a Bayesian! This doesn't seem right, or at least doesn't seem to account for the fact that there seems to be a controversy between "frequentists" on the one hand, and "Bayesians" on the other.
I don't see how a frequentist could Bayesian, to hold a Bayesian epistemology one would also have to adhere to a Bayesian theory of probability. Since frequentists don't hold such a theory that can not hold Bayesian epistemology.
As per my original comment, someone could agree that probabilities represent beliefs but also hold that the content of ("legitimate") beliefs consists only of statements about frequencies. This would allow them to simultaneously hold a frequentist interpretation of probability and a Bayesian epistemology. (As you said, "There is no Frequentist epistemology, a frequentist could hold any epistemology they wanted more or less.")