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.

Luke_A_Somers comments on Open thread, Dec. 21 - Dec. 27, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: MrMind 21 December 2015 07:56AM

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

Comments (230)

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

Comment author: passive_fist 21 December 2015 08:01:45PM 3 points [-]

Last week was a gathering of physicists in Oxford to discuss string theory and the philosophy of science.

From the article:

Nowadays, as several philosophers at the workshop said, Popperian falsificationism has been supplanted by Bayesian confirmation theory, or Bayesianism...

Gross concurred, saying that, upon learning about Bayesian confirmation theory from Dawid’s book, he felt “somewhat like the Molière character who said, ‘Oh my God, I’ve been talking prose all my life!’”

That the Bayesian view is news to so many physicists is itself news to me, and it's very unsettling news. You could say that modern theoretical physics has failed to be in-touch with other areas of science, but you could also make the argument that the rationalist community has failed to properly reach out and communicate with scientists.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 21 December 2015 09:04:33PM 0 points [-]

What gets me more is the guy who was complaining that the atomic theory is left in the same framework with 1-epsilon probability.

No, this is not a problem.