You are bit by bit dragging me out on thin ice here (statistics and
probability) which is fine, so long as you are prepared to rescue me.
I think, as a matter of practice, that the strength of an inference is
determined *a priori* when you define your population and select your
sample size.
Hi Nick (who started the thread, regarding induction, but teasing with current
events), and Arlo who has kept it alive,
For days I have been trying not to respond, but …
This is about the nuclear option, not about induction.
Malcolm Gladwell had a piece in the New Yorker about David and
Eric writes:
There is a kind of meanness or cynicism that likes to see hope dashed and
beauty destroyed, and this
meanness answers me by saying that if it isn't in the rules enforced with a
gun, it isn't real, and only
patsies fail to know that.
What a fantastic post.
I would answer this
I would answer this way, but it isn't because I want to see hope dashed and
beauty destroyed. It's because
I want to destroy the destroyers.
Marcus
Yes. I understand.
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays
Thanks Joyce! I did receive the message you forwarded to me. I think I’m set.
Jim
On Dec 6, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Eric Smith desm...@santafe.edu wrote:
Hi Nick (who started the thread, regarding induction, but teasing with
current events), and Arlo who has kept it alive,
For days I have been
] Why I was wrong about the nuclear option
The adjective weak seems to relate to how much money you should
be willing to bet on it. In this case, with the sample size at
one, and the population at billions, Peirce would advise you to
bet very little if anything, until you had a much
On 12/04/2013 07:39 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Yes (he would say), assuming that you were chosen at random from the
population of humans, it is a VALID inference from the fact that you can
break concrete that humans can break concrete. It is valid because we
would, if we continued to pick
This
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/12/04/why-i-was-wrong-a
bout-the-nuclear-option/ reminded of our discussion about a year ago
concerning the so-called fallacy of induction. Do any of you know about
grue and green. Grue is a property of grass that it is green, just until
Mr. Thompson,
New-Clear options? In what context?
Logic trap?
The logic trap that's popular in colleges goes about like: Gill is a human
able obliterate concrete and kick ass in MMA, therefore all humans can kick
ass in MMA and make short work of concrete.
=
On Wed, Dec
On 12/04/2013 09:46 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
if you take for granted that the world is not the sort of place that changes
on a dime. And where else could you have learned that save by induction.
Perhaps the fallacy doesn't lie in the general concept of reinforcement
learning, but in the
: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 12:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why I was wrong about the nuclear option
Mr. Thompson,
New-Clear options? In what context?
Logic trap?
The logic trap that's popular in colleges goes about like: Gill
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Gillian
Densmore
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 12:56 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why I was wrong about the nuclear option
Mr. Thompson,
New-Clear options? In what context
The adjective “weak” seems to relate to how much money you should be
willing to bet on it. In this case, with the sample size at one, and the
population at billions, Peirce would advise you to bet very little if
anything, until you had a much larger sample.
So is strength of an inference
] On Behalf Of Arlo Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why I was wrong about the nuclear option
The adjective weak seems to relate to how much money you should be willing
to bet on it. In this case
14 matches
Mail list logo
