From: Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Date: Thu Sep 15 2005 - 15:37:01 MDT
FYI,
Just to put the raven paradox to rest, I did a little poking around and
found a paper
http://fitelson.org/ravens.pdf
which does a quite nice job of addressing all the issues that intuitively
bothered me with the traditionally-cited Bayesian analyses of the Raven
paradox.
He shows why the traditional Bayesian arguments depend on unacceptable
assumptions, but then gives a pretty rigorous mathematical analysis based on
fairly minimal assumptions -- it's a nice paper. [In other words, he
criticizes probability theory "as traditionally deployed" in this context,
but does it well ;-) ] *This* kind of probabilistic argumentation is always
convincing to me...
-- Ben
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:ben@goertzel.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:15 PM
> To: sl4@sl4.org
> Subject: RE: Hempel's paradox redux
>
>
>
>
> > > However, what frustrates me about the quote you cite, and
> your attitude,
> > > is that you seem to be denying that probability theory as standardly
> > > deployed is conceptually and logically erroneous in this case
> -- albeit
> > > the magnitude of its error is generally small.
> >
> > I suppose the "as standardly deployed" leaves you an out. So, if you
> > like, I amend my request: Ben, stop dissing Bayesian
> probability theory
> > "as standardly deployed".
> >
> > --
> > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
>
> Well, I won't promise that, but I'll definitely be more careful
> in doing my algebra before doing so again ...
>
> It's probably time for me to overcome my habit of sending out
> hasty, half-thought-out emails while in the middle of boring
> conference calls ;-)
>
> ben
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT