marc.geddes wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 6:16 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Stathis once pointed on this list that crazy people can actually still
>>> perform axiomatic reasoning very well, and invent all sorts of
>>> elaborate justifications, the problem is their priors, not their
>>> reasoning; so if you try to use Bayes as the entire basis of your
>>> logic, you’re crazy ;)
>>>
>> Axiomatic reasoning =/= probabilistic reasoning.
>>
>
> Ok, probablistic/axiomatic, none of it works without the correct
> priors, which Bayes can't produce.
Bayes explicitly doesn't pretend to produce priors - although some have
invented ways of producing priors with minimum presumption (e.g. Jaynes
maximum entropy priors). Analogical reasoning doesn't produce priors
either and it can produce false conclusions too.
> Another exmaple would be dream
> states, you could reason probalistically in your sleep, but without
> the correct priors, your dreams will still be largely incoherent.
>
There's a huge difference between incoherent and incorrect.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Bayes is very powerful- I just don't
> think it's the be-all and end-all.
>
>
>> Try basing all your
>> reasoning on analogies.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I do. I think Bayes is just a special case of analogical reasoning ;)
Then you can say analogical reasoning is just a special case of
reasoning. Which then proves that reasoning is more fundamental than
analogical reasoning. Then will you claim to have destroyed analogical
reasoning. ??
Brent
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Aug 28 2009 - 23:50:35 PDT