This is a linkpost for http://curi.us/2065-open-letter-to-machine-intelligence-research-institute
The thinking process is Bayesian, and uses a prior.
What is the epistemological framework you used to judge the correctness of those? You don't just get to use Bayes' Theorem here without explaining the epistemological framework you used to judge the correctness of Bayes. Or the correctness of probability theory, your priors etc.
If you are doing induction all the time then you are using induction to judge the epistemology of induction. How is that supposed to work? ... Critical Rationalism does not have this problem. The epistemology of Critical Rationalism can be judged entirely within the framework of Critical Rationalism.
Little problem there.
No. Critical Rationalism can be used to improve Critical Rationalism and, consistently, to refute it (though no one has done so). This has been known for decades. Induction is not a complete epistemology like that. For one thing, inductivists also need the epistemology of deduction. But they also need an epistemological framework to judge both of those. This they cannot provide.
You don't just get to use Bayes' Theorem here without explaining the epistemological framework you used to judge the correctness of Bayes
I certainly do. I said that induction is not impossible, and that inductive reasoning is Bayesian. If you think that Bayesian reasoning is also impossible, you are free to establish that. You have not done so.
Critical Rationalism can be used to improve Critical Rationalism and, consistently, to refute it (though no one has done so).
If this is possible, it would be equally possible to refute induction (if it were im...