It has occurred to me before that the lack of a proper explanation on LessWrong of Bayesian epistemology (and not just saying` “Here’s Bayes’ theorem and how it works, with a neat Java applet”) is a serious lack. I’ve been reduced to linking the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, which is really not well written at all.
It is also clear from the comments on this post that people are talking about it without citable sources, and are downvoting as a mark of disagreement rather than anything else. This is bad as it directly discourages thought or engagement on the topic from those trying to disagree in good faith, as curi is here.
Is there a decent explanation of Bayesian epistemology per se (not the theorem, the epistemology) that doesn’t start by talking about Popper or something else, that the Bayesian epistemology advocates here could link to? This would lead to a much more productive discussion, as everyone might at least start on approximately the same page.
I don’t know if these are what you’re looking for but:
Probability Theory: The Logic of Science by Jaynes, spends its first chapter explaining why we need a ‘calculus of plausibility’ and what such a calculus should hope to achieve. The rest of the book is mostly about setting it up and showing what it can do. (The link does not contain the whole book, only the first few chapters, you may need to buy or borrow it to get the rest).
Yudkowsky’s Technical explanation, which assumes the reader is already familiar with the theorem, explains some of its implications for scientific thinking in general.
It has occurred to me before that the lack of a proper explanation on LessWrong of Bayesian epistemology (and not just saying` “Here’s Bayes’ theorem and how it works, with a neat Java applet”) is a serious lack. I’ve been reduced to linking the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, which is really not well written at all.
It is also clear from the comments on this post that people are talking about it without citable sources, and are downvoting as a mark of disagreement rather than anything else. This is bad as it directly discourages thought or engagement on the topic from those trying to disagree in good faith, as curi is here.
Is there a decent explanation of Bayesian epistemology per se (not the theorem, the epistemology) that doesn’t start by talking about Popper or something else, that the Bayesian epistemology advocates here could link to? This would lead to a much more productive discussion, as everyone might at least start on approximately the same page.
I don’t know if these are what you’re looking for but:
Probability Theory: The Logic of Science by Jaynes, spends its first chapter explaining why we need a ‘calculus of plausibility’ and what such a calculus should hope to achieve. The rest of the book is mostly about setting it up and showing what it can do. (The link does not contain the whole book, only the first few chapters, you may need to buy or borrow it to get the rest).
Yudkowsky’s Technical explanation, which assumes the reader is already familiar with the theorem, explains some of its implications for scientific thinking in general.
See here for what I see the absence of. There’s a hole that needs filling here.