Demands for moral justification have their Charybdis and their Scylla:

A rather fancy way of saying the horns of a dilemma. If I were a Bayesian I might say that my prior is to believe that this is a sure sign of a false premise hidden in there somewhere leading to the false alternative. If I where a frequentist I might say 999 times out 1000 such dilemmas are a sure sign of the same. Ethics is full of such horns and dilemmas, handed out like poisoned candy to the kiddies on halloween by the very professors who are suppose to find the error and resolve them. In any case, a B or a F should be motivated to prove the hypothesis or rule it out. Throwing up one’s hands and creating ad hoc rules for moral issues seems.… more wrong.

And hopefully the whole frequentist -v- bayesian dichotomy-debate will turn out not to have a false premise behind it. Of this I am not sure.

A rather fancy way of saying the horns of a dilemma. If I were a Bayesian I might say that my prior is to believe that this is a sure sign of a false premise hidden in there somewhere leading to the false alternative. If I where a frequentist I might say 999 times out 1000 such dilemmas are a sure sign of the same. Ethics is full of such horns and dilemmas, handed out like poisoned candy to the kiddies on halloween by the very professors who are suppose to find the error and resolve them. In any case, a B or a F should be motivated to prove the hypothesis or rule it out. Throwing up one’s hands and creating ad hoc rules for moral issues seems.… more wrong.

And hopefully the whole frequentist -v- bayesian dichotomy-debate will turn out not to have a false premise behind it. Of this I am not sure.