marc.geddes wrote: > > On Aug 29, 6:16 pm, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> Stathis once pointed on this list that crazy people can actually still >>> perform axiomatic reasoning very well, and invent all sorts of >>> elaborate justifications, the problem is their priors, not their >>> reasoning; so if you try to use Bayes as the entire basis of your >>> logic, you’re crazy ;) >>> >> Axiomatic reasoning =/= probabilistic reasoning. >> > > Ok, probablistic/axiomatic, none of it works without the correct > priors, which Bayes can't produce. Bayes explicitly doesn't pretend to produce priors - although some have invented ways of producing priors with minimum presumption (e.g. Jaynes maximum entropy priors). Analogical reasoning doesn't produce priors either and it can produce false conclusions too.
> Another exmaple would be dream > states, you could reason probalistically in your sleep, but without > the correct priors, your dreams will still be largely incoherent. > There's a huge difference between incoherent and incorrect. > Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Bayes is very powerful- I just don't > think it's the be-all and end-all. > > >> Try basing all your >> reasoning on analogies. >> >> Brent >> > > I do. I think Bayes is just a special case of analogical reasoning ;) Then you can say analogical reasoning is just a special case of reasoning. Which then proves that reasoning is more fundamental than analogical reasoning. Then will you claim to have destroyed analogical reasoning. ?? Brent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
