You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

paulfchristiano comments on Bayesian Epistemology vs Popper - Less Wrong Discussion

-1 Post author: curi 06 April 2011 11:50PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (226)
Tags: epistemology popper jaynes

Comments (226)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: paulfchristiano 07 April 2011 01:53:27AM 2 points [-]

Saying your epistemology has a "necessary flaw" is an admission of defeat,

In this case, its recognition of reality. I repeat that I would like to defer this conversation until we have something concrete to disagree about. Until then I don't care about that difference.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 April 2011 02:24:53AM 0 points [-]

The "necessary flaw" arises because all justificationist epistemologies lead to infinite regress or circular arguments or appeals to authority (or even sillier things). That you think there is no alternative to justificationism and I don't is something concrete we disagree about.

Comment author: David_Allen 07 April 2011 04:02:37PM 1 point [-]

Adding a reference for this comment: Münchhausen Trilemma.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit