The problem is, nobody else here (or very few people here) regards justification as impossible, You’re essentially saying you refuse to engage by the same evidentiary rules as anyone else here. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind without providing justification.
“At which point infinitely many of my 100% theories will be refuted. And infinitely many will remain. ”
Like I said, look up Kolmogrov Complexity and minimum message length. At any given time, the simplest of those ‘theories’ consistent with all data is the one with the highest probability.
Can you tell how ideas are justified, without creating a regress or other severe problem? Tell me the type of justificationism that works, then I will accept it.
Can you tell me at posterior probability you consider an idea justified, and how many different models can be grouped together under a single idea, without appealing to intuition or other fuzzy concepts?
Also, can you replace the “>” in the top level post with html formatting of some sort?
The problem is, nobody else here (or very few people here) regards justification as impossible, You’re essentially saying you refuse to engage by the same evidentiary rules as anyone else here. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind without providing justification.
“At which point infinitely many of my 100% theories will be refuted. And infinitely many will remain. ”
Like I said, look up Kolmogrov Complexity and minimum message length. At any given time, the simplest of those ‘theories’ consistent with all data is the one with the highest probability.
Can you tell how ideas are justified, without creating a regress or other severe problem? Tell me the type of justificationism that works, then I will accept it.
Can you tell me at posterior probability you consider an idea justified, and how many different models can be grouped together under a single idea, without appealing to intuition or other fuzzy concepts?
Also, can you replace the “>” in the top level post with html formatting of some sort?