On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > Furthermore I fail to see how even the mathematician's (thought it was > supposed to be logician's) version of the argument is sound. The reference to > the "principle of indifference" instead makes it sound like some sort of > Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my Bayesian hat on anyway. For this to work > I would have to put 100% credence in omd's statement and then think that there > was nothing to epistemically distinguish the two branches. This is far from > the case. > > --Dan the non-Bayesian Fool.
I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian, maybe I was channeling).
