I don’t agree that rehashing old ideas is a bad thing, especially when good old ideas or their implications are being ignored. Novelty is valuable, but highly overrated.
There’s no point to the rating system if we don’t exercise our evaluations independently. Taking other people’s opinions into consideration may be a good way to reach a final conclusion, but it’s a terrible way to form your own opinion.
What precisely is the difference between being a “good Bayesian” as you describe it, and being a groupthinker? Is it only that the Bayesian has an explicit equation while the groupthinker probably doesn’t?
I don’t agree that rehashing old ideas is a bad thing, especially when good old ideas or their implications are being ignored. Novelty is valuable, but highly overrated.
There’s no point to the rating system if we don’t exercise our evaluations independently. Taking other people’s opinions into consideration may be a good way to reach a final conclusion, but it’s a terrible way to form your own opinion.
What precisely is the difference between being a “good Bayesian” as you describe it, and being a groupthinker? Is it only that the Bayesian has an explicit equation while the groupthinker probably doesn’t?