Your explanation of “Einstein’s Arrogance” feels plainly wrong:
Humans don’t surface hypotheses for active consideration via Bayesian means. Perhaps the process by which humans actually generate hypotheses could be coherently formalised in a Bayesian framework, but using that as an explanation for Einstein’s Arrogance seems like a non safe procedure.
If Einstein’s hypothesis generation process does not actually select from hypothesis space by updating a prior probability distribution on evidence then claiming that Einstein must have had enough information to pinpoint general relativity is just wrong?
And this is true even if we can formalise the hypothesis generation process in a Bayesian framework. It doesn’t explain how Einstein actually generated the hypothesis.
And it seems dubious to me that humans don’t actually select hypothesis for special consideration via updating on evidence on their prior distribution over hypothesis space.
The argument also proves too much.
It suggests that all hypotheses we surface for special consideration are hypotheses we have ample evidence for.
This seems obviously not true given the many terrible hypotheses people have postulated.
In fact, most hypotheses most people postulate are inaccurate.
Your explanation of “Einstein’s Arrogance” feels plainly wrong:
Humans don’t surface hypotheses for active consideration via Bayesian means. Perhaps the process by which humans actually generate hypotheses could be coherently formalised in a Bayesian framework, but using that as an explanation for Einstein’s Arrogance seems like a non safe procedure.
If Einstein’s hypothesis generation process does not actually select from hypothesis space by updating a prior probability distribution on evidence then claiming that Einstein must have had enough information to pinpoint general relativity is just wrong?
And this is true even if we can formalise the hypothesis generation process in a Bayesian framework. It doesn’t explain how Einstein actually generated the hypothesis.
And it seems dubious to me that humans don’t actually select hypothesis for special consideration via updating on evidence on their prior distribution over hypothesis space.
The argument also proves too much.
It suggests that all hypotheses we surface for special consideration are hypotheses we have ample evidence for.
This seems obviously not true given the many terrible hypotheses people have postulated.
In fact, most hypotheses most people postulate are inaccurate.