From: Chris Capel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 01 2006 - 17:06:35 MDT
On 8/1/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <email@example.com> wrote:
> Scott Yokim wrote:
> > Maybe each new hypothesis that scientists generate is initially given an
> > evidence of something like -40 dB? And the RPOP should do the same? I
> > suppose the initial value has evolved over time, and could be rising?
> 1) Having a clearly defined initial credence of -40 dB followed by
> proper integration of evidence, would be a *vast* improvement over the
> current situation in science. The problem here is not prior
> probabilities; those wash out. The problem is selective attendance to
> evidence, failure to integrate consistently, and subjective parameters
> in informal models.
I'm not sure if you meant to include this with "failure to integrate
consistently", but I would add that communication between disciplines
is usually quite poor.
-- "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 18 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT