= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
curi comments on Bayesian Epistemology vs Popper - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (226)
I don't have any criticism of deductive logic itself. But I do have criticisms of some of the premises i expect you to use. For example, they won't all be deductively argued for themselves. That raises the problem of: how will you sort out good ideas from bad ideas for use as premises? That gets into various proposed solutions to that problem, such as induction or Popperian epistemology. But if you get into that, right in the premises of your supposed proof, then it won't be much of a proof because so much substantive content in the premises will be non-deductive.
Do you agree with the premises I have used in the discussion of Dutch books and VNM-utility so far? There it is basically "a decision precess that we actually care about must have the following properties" and that's it. I did skim over inferring probabilities from Dutch books and VNM axiom 3 and there may be some hidden premises in the former.
I don't think so. You said we have to assign probabilities to avoid getting Dutch Booked. I want an example of that. I got an example where probabilities weren't mentioned, which did not convince me they were needed.