Bayesianism has a regress/foundations problem. Yudkowsky acknowledges that. Popperism doesn’t. So Popperism is better in a pretty straightforward way.
Any system with axioms can be infinitely regressed or rendered circular if you demand that it justify the axioms. Critical Rationalism has axioms, and can be infinitely regressed.
You were upvoted in the beginning for pointing out gaps in scholarship and raising ideas not in common circulation here. You yourself, however, have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of Bayesianism, and have attracted frustration with your own lack of scholarship and confused arguments, along with failure to provide good reasons for us to be interested in the prospect of doing this large amount of reading you insist is necessary to properly understand Popper. If doing this reading were worthwhile, we would expect you to be able to give a better demonstration of why.
Any system with axioms can be infinitely regressed or rendered circular if you demand that it justify the axioms. Critical Rationalism has axioms, and can be infinitely regressed.
You haven’t understood the basic point that this only works if you accept that ideas should be justify.
If you reject the demand for justification—as CR does—then then regress is gone. Hence no regress in CR.
The position might be self consistent if you accept its premises, and one of its premises may be that you can introduce any idea without justification, but it’s not reality consistent.
It’s no less founded on unproven axioms, and it’s no less arbitrary than induction, it just contains the tenet “we don’t reject propositions for being arbitrary” and pats itself on the back for being self consistent. This doesn’t do a better job helping people generate true information, it does a worse one.
Being arbitrary is a criticism, so a critical rationalist can and does reject propositions for being arbitrary. Rejecting the idea of justification does not mean accepting any old arbitrary thing. If your idea doesn’t stand up to criticism, including criticism that it is just arbitrary, then it is gone.
Any system with axioms can be infinitely regressed or rendered circular if you demand that it justify the axioms. Critical Rationalism has axioms, and can be infinitely regressed.
You were upvoted in the beginning for pointing out gaps in scholarship and raising ideas not in common circulation here. You yourself, however, have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of Bayesianism, and have attracted frustration with your own lack of scholarship and confused arguments, along with failure to provide good reasons for us to be interested in the prospect of doing this large amount of reading you insist is necessary to properly understand Popper. If doing this reading were worthwhile, we would expect you to be able to give a better demonstration of why.
You haven’t understood the basic point that this only works if you accept that ideas should be justify.
If you reject the demand for justification—as CR does—then then regress is gone. Hence no regress in CR.
How do you know which forms of criticism are valid? Do you jusitify them, or attempt to criticise them? EIther way looks regressive to me.
Tell me how you found me on Less Wrong or I’m definitely not answering any of your questions.
I reject this position as vacuous.
The position might be self consistent if you accept its premises, and one of its premises may be that you can introduce any idea without justification, but it’s not reality consistent.
b/c?
It’s no less founded on unproven axioms, and it’s no less arbitrary than induction, it just contains the tenet “we don’t reject propositions for being arbitrary” and pats itself on the back for being self consistent. This doesn’t do a better job helping people generate true information, it does a worse one.
Being arbitrary is a criticism, so a critical rationalist can and does reject propositions for being arbitrary. Rejecting the idea of justification does not mean accepting any old arbitrary thing. If your idea doesn’t stand up to criticism, including criticism that it is just arbitrary, then it is gone.