On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with you that you can't just consider something to be "true" or > "false" based on a few observations, but you DO have to make binary > decisions based on whatever it is that you do know. Those decisions may > reflect an underlying "belief" that isn't truly held, but who cares what the > neurons/transistors are doing when all externally observable evidence is > that they DO hold sometimes superstitious "beliefs". >
If you have to perform some action, and all you've got is a guess, you act on it, nothing better can be done. But at least you make the best of information that you can get your sensors on. > > Also, I fail to see how Beyesian approaches will disfavor religious beliefs, > as religious beliefs are absolutely perfect explainers, and hence will > "float to the top" of probabilities once you roll in observation errors that > will reduce all other probabilities. > A theory is strong not when data support it, or when it doesn't support the wrong data, but when it can distinguish between the two. God hypothesis is as useful as a coin flip in its power to detect the facts. A weak theory, on the other hand, that says "zebra!" only in 0.09% of cases when the track is zebra's, and in 0.08% of cases when it's not zebra's, is much better. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
