= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Help Fund Lukeprog at SIAI - 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 (276)
I mean 'evidence' in the Bayesian sense, not the scientific sense. I have significant Bayesian evidence that minicamp was a success on several measures, but I can't know more until we collect more data.
Thanks for providing a list of information we could post. One reason for not posting more information is that doing so requires lots of staff hours, and we don't have enough of those available. We're also trying to, for example, develop a rationality curriculum and write a document of open problems in FAI theory.
If you're anxious to learn more about the rationality camps before SI has time to publish about that data, you're welcome to contact the people who attended; many of them have identified themselves on Less Wrong.
I'm fairly confident that campers got more out of my fashion sessions than what they can learn only from looking at a few fashion magazines.
Cheers,
Luke
Shouldn't these be the same? Bayesian evidence is surely scientific evidence - and visa versa. I don't see much point in multiplying definitions of "evidence". Let's just have one notion of "evidence", please. Promoting multiple "evdience" concepts seems to be undesirable terminology - unless there's a really good reason for doing so.
There is a good reason. A lot of things people know can't contribute to forming reliable public knowledge for all sorts of practical reasons. And you know the reference for the arguments about this question: Scientific Evidence, Legal Evidence, Rational Evidence.
Actually, that helps. As a teenager, I noticed that most of the scientific method, including the key concept of experimentation, extended to personal knowledge and understanding. So, I did what seemed to be the obvious thing: I expanded my conception of science to include that domain. The public-only conception of science wasn't really much of a natural kind - since eventually technology would gain access to people's minds.
That explains why I don't get very much out of the Science vs Bayes material on this site. To me it just looks as though the true nature of science has not been properly grokked.
I must say, I still like my way: expanding the definition of science a teeny bit has a number of virtues over trying to stage a rationality revolution.