tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post4402081747567224615..comments2023-01-24T10:06:57.212-08:00Comments on (Blog&~Blog): Why I'm Not A BayesianBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-44944937395650659122010-09-01T17:10:05.016-07:002010-09-01T17:10:05.016-07:00Fallibilism means always keeping the door open to ...Fallibilism means always keeping the door open to the possibility that you're views are wrong, being willing to consider and weigh new arguments and new evidence for contrary views, never being absolutely certain about anything, etc. I guarantee that if you google "fallibilism" on its own, my old posts won't be among the first results.<br /><br />"Logical fallibilism" is just fallibilism about one's belief in basic logical principles--e.g. even if you accept the Law of the Excluded Middle, you shouldn't be absolutely dogmatically certain about it, and you should carefully weigh and consider new arguments against it that people might bring up based on, say, problems about vague predicates, or quantum physics, or whatever other arguments people might bring up to argue that there are cases in which Excluded Middle breaks down.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-35920638100333906032010-09-01T07:28:09.198-07:002010-09-01T07:28:09.198-07:00Well, I'm not entirely sure what you are sayin...Well, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. You seem to know the subject much better than I do, and are very free with the offhand allusions and comments, so that I quickly get lost.<br /><br />For example, when you say "(a) one ought never believe something that one knows can't be true", I'm not sure how I would put this in Bayesian terms or not. It must be obvious to you since you conclude it and (b) are incompatible.<br /><br />(I'm not even certain what 'logical fallibilism' is. Googling, one of the first hits is http://blogandnot-blog.blogspot.com/2010/05/few-thoughts-on-logical-fallibilism.html , which never seems to define it.)gwernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18349479103216755952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-84594085095117054902010-08-27T16:23:28.119-07:002010-08-27T16:23:28.119-07:00Of course classical logic is compatible with Bayes...Of course classical logic is compatible with Bayesianism. Did I say anything that suggested that I thought otherwise?<br /><br />My objections are--(1) that Bayesianism is incompatible with logical fallibilism, and (2) that I think that (a) one ought never believe something that one knows can't be true (e.g. a contradiction), and that (b) if one is rationally entitled to believe all of the premises of a valid deductive argument, and one knows that the conclusion follows from those premises, one is therefore rationally entitled to believe the conclusion of the argument on that basis, and the Lottery and Preface Paradoxes demonstrate that (a) and (b) are jointly incompatible with Bayesianism.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-89851145141148383282010-08-27T00:38:51.736-07:002010-08-27T00:38:51.736-07:00I've read both this and the other, and I don&#...I've read both this and the other, and I don't understand what your objection is. Classical logic seems entirely compatible with Bayesianism - plug probabilities of 1 and 0 into Bayes's theorem and out fall your old classical results.gwernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18349479103216755952noreply@blogger.com