Prob­lem of Old Evidence

TagLast edit: 17 Nov 2020 23:42 UTC by Ruby

Suppose a new scientific hypothesis, such as general relativity, explains a well-know observation such as the perihelion precession of mercury better than any existing theory. Intuitively, this is a point in favor of the new theory. However, the probability for the well-known observation was already at 100%. How can a previously-known statement provide new support for the hypothesis, as if we are re-updating on evidence we’ve already updated on long ago? This is known as the problem of old evidence, and is usually levelled as a charge against Bayesian epistemology.

[Needs to be expanded!]

Rad­i­cal Probabilism

abramdemski18 Aug 2020 21:14 UTC
146 points
46 comments35 min readLW link

Toward a New Tech­ni­cal Ex­pla­na­tion of Tech­ni­cal Explanation

abramdemski16 Feb 2018 0:44 UTC
82 points
36 comments18 min readLW link

Ap­pli­ca­tions of log­i­cal uncertainty

alex_zag_al18 Oct 2014 19:26 UTC
30 points
19 comments4 min readLW link
No comments.