Which you stated you had not read. I have rather low standards for recommendations of things to read, but "I never read it myself" isn't good enough.
Earman is a philosopher and the book has gotten positive reviews from other philosophers. I don't know what else to say in that regard.
I don't agree with "restrict to professionals". How is it to be determined who is a professional? I don't want to set up arbitrary, authoritative criteria for dismissing ideas based on their source.
Hrrm? You mentioned professionals first. I'm not sure why you are now objecting to the use of professionals as a relevant category.
That is a major point for scientific research where the problem "how do we use evidence?" is important. And the answer is "criticisms can refer to evidence". Note by "science" here I mean any empirical field. What do you do in non-scientific fields? You simply make criticisms that don't refer to evidence. Same method, just missing one type of criticism which is rather useful in science but not fundamental to the methodology
I'm not at all convinced that this is what Popper intended (but again I've only read LScD) but if this is accurate then Popper isn't just wrong in an interesting way but is just wrong. Does one mean for example to claim that pure mathematics works off of criticism? I'm a mathematician. We don't do this. Moreover, it isn't clear what it would even mean for us to try to do this as our primary method of inquiry. Are we supposed to spend all our time going through pre-existing proofs trying to find holes in them?
He has like 20 books. There's way more to it. When one reads a lot of them, a whole worldview comes across that is very hard to understand from just a couple books.
Yes, and I'm quite sure that I get much more of a worldview if I read all of Hegel rather than just some of it. That doesn't mean I need to read all of it. Similar remarks would apply to Aquinas or more starkly the New Testament. Do you need to read all of the New Testament to decide that Christianity is bunk? Do you need to read the entire Talmud to decide that Judaism is incorrect? But you get a whole worldview that you don't obtain from just reading the major texts.
The short answer is: since we don't care to have justified foundations, you can discuss it any way you like. You can say it's bad because it hurts people. You can say it's good because it prevents overpopulation. You can say it's bad because it's mean. These kinds of normal arguments, made by normal people, are not deemed automatically invalid and ignored. Many of them are indeed mistakes. But some make good points
Right, and then we just the criticism "why bother" or "and how does that maximize the number of paperclip in the universe?" Or one can say "mean" "good" bad" are all hideously ill-defined. In any event, does it not bother you that you are essentially claiming that your moral discussion with your great epistemological system looks just like a discussion about morality by a bunch of random individuals? There's nothing in the above that uses your epistemology in any substantial way.
Are you really telling me that you can prove something, then take the conclusion, redefine a term, and work with that, and consider it still proven? You could only do that if you created a second proof that the change doesn't break anything, you can't just do it.
Right! And conveniently in the case Popper cares about you can prove that.
Popper doesn't appreciate what you can do with measure theory and L_p spacesWould you understand if I said this has no relevance at all to 99.99% of Popper's philosophy? Note that his later books generally have considerably less mention of math or logic.
Do you mean understand or do you mean care? I don't understand why you are making this statement given that my remark was addressing the question you asked of whether I had specific problems with Popper's handling of Bayesianism in LScD. This is a specific problem there.
Does one mean for example to claim that pure mathematics works off of criticism? I'm a mathematician. We don't do this.
I don't know what Popper himself would say, but one of his more insightful followers, namely Lakatos, argues for exactly that position.
I read Proofs and Refutations too many years ago to say anything precise about it. I remember finding it interesting but also frustrating. Lakatos seems determined to ignore/deny/downplay the fact of mathematical practice that we only call something a 'theorem' when we've got a proof, and we only call so...
I was directed to this book (http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/prob.html) in conversation here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3ox/bayesianism_versus_critical_rationalism/3ug7?context=1#3ug7
I was told it had a proof of Bayesian epistemology in the first two chapters. One of the things we were discussing is Popper's epistemology.
Here are those chapters:
http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cc01p.pdf
http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cc02m.pdf
I have not found any proof here that Bayesian epistemology is correct. There is not even an attempt to prove it. Various things are assumed in the first chapter. In the second chapter, some things are proven given those assumptions.
Some first chapter assumptions are incorrect or unargued. It begins with an example with a policeman, and says his conclusion is not a logical deduction because the evidence is logically consistent with his conclusion being false. I agree so far. Next it says "we will grant that it had a certain degree of validity". But I will not grant that. Popper's epistemology explains that *this is a mistake* (and Jaynes makes no attempt at all to address Popper's arguments). In any case, simply assuming his readers will grant his substantive claims is no way to argue.
The next sentences blithely assert that we all reason in this way. Jaynes' is basically presenting the issues of this kind of reasoning as his topic. This simply ignores Popper and makes no attempt to prove Jaynes' approach is correct.
Jaynes goes on to give syllogisms, which he calls "weaker" than deduction, which he acknowledges are not deductively correct. And then he just says we use that kind of reasoning all the time. That sort of assertion only appeals to the already converted. Jaynes starts with arguments which appeal to the *intuition* of his readers, not on arguments which could persuade someone who disagreed with him (that is, good rational arguments). Later when he gets into more mathematical stuff which doesn't (directly) rest on appeals to intution, it does rest on the ideas he (supposedly) established early on with his appeals to intuition.
The outline of the approach here is to quickly gloss over substantive philosophical assumptions, never provide serious arguments for them, take them as common sense, do not detail them, and then later provide arguments which are rigorous *given the assumptions glossed over earlier*. This is a mistake.
So we get, e.g., a section on Boolean Algebra which says it will state previous ideas more formally. This briefly acknowledges that the rigorous parts depend on the non-rigorous parts. Also the very important problem of carefully detailing how the mathematical objects discussed correspond to the real world things they are supposed to help us understand does not receive adequate attention.
Chapter 2 begins by saying we've now formulated our problem and the rest is just math. What I take from that is that the early assumptions won't be revisted but simply used as premises. So the rest is pointless if those early assumptions are mistaken, and Bayesian Epistemology cannot be proven in this way to anyone who doesn't grant the assumptions (such as a Popperian).
Moving on to Popper, Jaynes is ignorant of the topic and unscholarly. He writes:
http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/crefsv.pdf
> Karl Popper is famous mostly through making a career out of the doctrine that theories may not be proved true, only false
This is pure fiction. Popper is a fallibilist and said (repeatedly) that theories cannot be proved false (or anything else).
It's important to criticize unscholarly books promoting myths about rival philosophers rather than addressing their actual arguments. That's a major flaw not just in a particular paragraph but in the author's way of thinking. It's especially relevant in this case since the author of the books tries to tell us about how to think.
Note that Yudkowsky made a similar unscholarly mistake, about the same rival philosopher, here:
http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes
> Previously, the most popular philosophy of science was probably Karl Popper's falsificationism - this is the old philosophy that the Bayesian revolution is currently dethroning. Karl Popper's idea that theories can be definitely falsified, but never definitely confirmed
Popper's philosophy is not falsificationism, it was never the most popular, and it is fallibilist: it says ideas cannot be definitely falsified. It's bad to make this kind of mistake about what a rival's basic claims are when claiming to be dethroning him. The correct method of dethroning a rival philosophy involves understanding what it does say and criticizing that.
If Bayesians wish to challenge Popper they should learn his ideas and address his arguments. For example he questioned the concept of positive support for ideas. Part of this argument involves asking the questions: 'What is support?' (This is not asking for its essential nature or a perfect definition, just to explain clearly and precisely what the support idea actually says) and 'What is the difference between "X supports Y" and "X is consistent with Y"?' If anyone has the answer, please tell me.