= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stefan_Schubert comments on Raven paradox settled to my satisfaction - 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 (24)
Here is the Wikipedia article on Raven's paradox. It makes it clear how big the literature on the topic is. In my view, you should situate your proposal relative to at least some of those proposals when writing a post like this. It is hard to evaluate the value of your proposal (and whether it is at all worth reading) when you haven't done that.
If reading through the thoughts of people who don't know how to apply likelihood ratios is no fun to me, I don't want to inflict it on my readers either.
Aw, jeez, the wikipedia list is worse than I thought. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy made the mainstream look more reasonable, if still bad at using probability.
Will you accept me situating my proposal as "the one that shows how basic probability theory implies that induction has more degrees of freedom than one might first think?"
I'm sorry but no, that is not enough. I want clear and reasonably detailed reasons for why the mainstream is wrong in posts like this. Some very smart people have worked on this problem and you need to at least comment on their views in order to be taken seriously by me.
Thank you for helping me understand where you're coming from, but since this is a simple application of probabilistic reasoning I think it stands fine on its own merits.