On 1/26/24 3:13 PM, glen wrote:
I enjoyed this brief assessment of subjective probability/plausibility:
https://home.snafu.de/erich/ibe_2023.pdf
And I kindasortamaybe agree with their conclusion in favor of
"convergence":
"Convergence: Traditional epistemic values can over time yield
evaluations of theories differing from those of subjective
plausibility and probability, yet theories that count as overall
epistemically best at a time must in finitely many steps revise to
theories that are most likely true given the available evidence."
I only felt half-able to parse through this set of esoteric
arguments/assertions/discussions from the rarified world of Philosophy
of Language and Value Theory?
Is it saying in "plain language" that starting with abstract evaluations
of the quality of a theory/explanation/narrative, one often ends up
settling on such things which do not align with common sense yet
following a process of combining those abstractions with
measurements/observations one can converge on something "closer to truth"?
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
