Tim, you wrote here that:
A perfectly rational agent who denies the validity of induction would be totally unimpressed by Bayesian arguments.
Have you changed your mind? Do you now deny that Bayescraft relies on induction?
Brian_Scurfield2
Karma: 1
Tim, you wrote here that:
A perfectly rational agent who denies the validity of induction would be totally unimpressed by Bayesian arguments.
Have you changed your mind? Do you now deny that Bayescraft relies on induction?
Tim,
Re: Bayesianism and induction.
Given your concession that Bayesianism is a formalisation of induction, I don’t understand your original criticism that me saying inductivism renders Bayesian sterile is like saying solipsism renders physics sterile.
Here’s a definition from David Deutsch’s “The Fabric of Reality:
Crypto-Inductivist: Someone who believes that the invalidity of inductive reasoning raises a serious philosophical problem, namely the problem of how to justify relying on scientific theories.
Crypto-inductivists have an “induction shaped” gap in their scheme of things.
Critical rationalism really did solve the problem of induction: It has no “induction shaped” gap.
I’m guessing from your Hume quote that you think it did so by resorting to radical skepticism, but if you think this you are mistaken.