I’ve noticed a recent trend towards skepticism of Bayesian principles and philosophy (see Nostalgebraist’s recent post for an example), which I have regarded with both surprise and a little bit of dismay, because I think progress within a community tends to be indicated by moving forward to new subjects and problems rather than a return to old ones that have already been extensively argued for and discussed.
Not sure if this is the best characterization: much of LW’s stance towards Bayesianism always came from the Word of Eliezer, rather than through any thorough discussion and debate. I’d say that skepticism of Bayesianism within our community isn’t really “returning to subjects that have already been extensively discussed”, but rather as “subjecting foundational premises to the kind of criticism they need to undergo before people can trust them to be true, and before people really understand their extent and limitations”.
Not sure if this is the best characterization: much of LW’s stance towards Bayesianism always came from the Word of Eliezer, rather than through any thorough discussion and debate. I’d say that skepticism of Bayesianism within our community isn’t really “returning to subjects that have already been extensively discussed”, but rather as “subjecting foundational premises to the kind of criticism they need to undergo before people can trust them to be true, and before people really understand their extent and limitations”.