Mathematician, serial entrepreneur (vrnet.io last startup)
Artem Batogovsky (forux)
Karma: 22
• It commits a category error by calling a frequentist p-value calculation “Bayesian inversion,” which muddles two distinct inferential frameworks.
• It overstates trust in peer-review (“we can only trust articles in peer-reviewed journals”) and cites a paper to claim conspiracies are “mathematically impossible,” ignoring evidence from the reproducibility crisis showing peer review is insufficient on its own.
• It conflates basic logic with ZFC set theory and invents a “Mathematicity Hypothesis” as if this were scientific consensus; logic does not depend on ZFC, and this framing is idiosyncratic at best.
• The Socrates syllogism “anti-example” misfires: deductive validity isn’t established by experiment; experiments test the empirical premises, not the inference rule.
• The null-hypothesis section claims exact hypotheses have probability zero, which is only a Bayesian statement under continuous priors and is not a general truth of hypothesis testing; the ASA’s guidance directly cautions against the very confusions the piece leans on.
• Occam’s razor is reduced to Kolmogorov complexity while ignoring widely used, practical formalizations of parsimony vs. fit (MDL/AIC/BIC), leaving the advice unhelpful for real model selection.
• It claims to compile points “recognized by the global consensus” while stitching together mutually contested philosophies (Popper, Lakatos, Sagan, frequentist testing, Bayesian talk) without acknowledging deep disagreements.
• Declaring the “unit of scientific activity is an experiment” sidelines theory, measurement, simulation, and observational sciences; the later nod to “passive experiments” doesn’t resolve the overreach.
Can you please provide analysis where Ukraine side losses are 200k people and Russia side are 400k people?
The article’s main idea is(can be?) that in all possible scenarios, the best one for Humanity is the loss of Putin’s Empire.
It is hard to understand it without comparing it to the outcomes of all other scenarios. Because in each scenario after the start of a full-scale invasion, all scenarios are massive devastation for Humanity—we can choose only less devastation among all.
I think the idea is about the “Russian World”. Putin and his elite used it almost always when trying to explain what they wanted to do. They always built their propaganda around “supreme russians” and other nations that “have no rights to exist”.
We ended the voting about place and date and now place and time of meetup are final =)
Hello all =)
I am reading LW more that one year. I organized book club meetups about HPMOR in Kyiv, Ukraine in past (https://vk.com/hpmor_meeting and https://vk.com/efficient_reading5)
Now i start to organization process of first general LW meetup in Kyiv, our google group: http://groups.google.com/d/forum/LessWrong-Kyiv
On the first meet we will discuss Daniel Kahneman`s “Thinking, Fast and Slow” book in addition to what we will do in the future =)
Please, if you can—give any useful suggestions about what and how first meetup must be done (i have read LW pdf file about how to organize meetups).
The cult is back…
Someone makes a 1-day account, posts this, and then disappears for two years, ignoring all criticism. And then what? The cult leaders “listen” to your feelings just to push you into what they want again?
And now you’re back to using your 1-day accounts, trying to game the karma buttons?
I said I don’t want to have a conversation with a cult in a local group — same here. I’ve done my best to point out the most serious issues I can. I’m sure that right now we don’t have any formal definition of the Scientific Method, and the only way to be sure it works is by looking at results, not the process itself — at least for now. But even if someone wants to formalize it in some way, it would still be a good idea to adjust and respond to comments, not just, at any cost, try to prove you were right from the start. Just my thoughts.
That’s all from me for you, for the cult, and for the cult leaders-readers who read everything and never act themselves. Hi, Lesia ;)