= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paulfchristiano comments on Induction; or, the rules and etiquette of reference class tennis - 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 (8)
The post is an answer to the question "what framework is appropriate for practical inductive reasoning?"
I was asking: is this unclear from the first few paragraphs, is the first few paragraphs too long to take (it sounds like you read the first few paragraphs, so this isn't it), is this an insufficiently precise description of what the post is about, is this an unclear description of what the post is about? Is more necessary for motivation? I am happy to only appeal to people who have thought about the issue before.
I identify the problem in the first paragraph. I can't identify the conclusion concisely. The payoff to the reader is a proposed approach to the problem, which should be useful to them if they find the problem problematic and are interested in new perspectives. It should not be useful to others.
Going by the first 3 paragraphs, it was unclear to me whether you would be writing about climate change or a particular related problem in inference, of estimating the probability of low likelihood, high cost events as extrapolated from historical data.
It did not seem in any way so general as
And looking through the rest of the post, I don't think the post as a whole is that general either. More like decision theory for low likelihood, high cost events as extrapolated from historical data.