= 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)
Why is that a criticism? What's wrong with that?
Also maybe it could be. But I don't know how.
And the basics could be explained quickly, to someone who didn't have a bunch of anti-Popperian biases, but people do have those b/c they are built into our culture. And without the details and precision then people complain about 1) not understanding how to do it, what it says 2) it not having enough precision and rigor
Actually I don't know what constitutes a criticism in your book (since you never specified), but you have also said that there are no rules for criticism, so I suppose that it is a criticism. If not, then please say why it is not a criticism.
I am not going to engage in a discussion about my and your biases, since such debates rarely lead to an agreement.
You can conjecture standards of criticism, or use the ones from your culture. If you find a problem with them, you can change them or conjecture different ones.
For many purposes I'm pretty happen with common sense notions of standards of criticism, which I think you understand, but which are hard to explain in words. If you have a relevant problem with the, you can say it.