= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on A question about Eliezer - 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 (158)
Suppose it is falsified. What conclusions would you draw from it? I.e. what subset of his teachings will be proven wrong? Obviously none.
His justification, " I don't think the modern field of physics has its act sufficiently together to predict that a hitherto undetected quantum field is responsible for mass." is basically a personal opinion of a non-expert. While it would make for an entertaining discussion, a discovery of the Higgs boson should not affect your judgement of his work in any way.
Unless your prior for his accuracy on Quantum Physics is very strong, you should update your prior for his accuracy up when he makes accurate predictions, particularly where he would be right and a lot of pros would be wrong.
Not at all. The QM sequence predicts nothing about Higgs and has no original predictions, anyway, nothing that could falsify it, at any rate.
In general, if the situation where "he would be right and a lot of pros would be wrong" happens unreasonably frequently, you might want to "update your prior for his accuracy up" because he might have uncommonly good intuition, but that would probably apply to all his predictions across the board.