On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:35 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 4:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:08 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> He's wrong that frequentism does not empirically support probability >> statements. He goes off on a tangent by referring to "other gamblers". >> Nothing in physics is certain, yet Deutsch takes a bunch of definite >> assertions and claims they alone are the real physics. >> > > His critique of frequentism is just a recap of arguments that are well > known -- you cannot ground probability theory in frequentism, or the idea > that probabilities are nothing more than ratios of long-run frequencies. > Long-run frequencies might approximate the probabilities, but they cannot > be used to ground probability theory -- for well known reasons. I agree > that he goes off on a number of irrelevant tangents, and he is wrong to > suppose that frequentism is a main-stream theory of probability (at least, > these days). > > > But frequencies are how we test probabilistic theories. > Testing is not a theoretical grounding of the theory. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTNVrzp0JRzjwLU_2qb6nosugcSoGYuhtt%3D3Edq9dLOFQ%40mail.gmail.com.
