= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov 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)
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.