[ExI] Bayesian epistemology

[Samantha Atkins]

On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:32 +0100, Russell Wallace wrote:
> Lee Corbin wrote in another thread:
> > Well, it's been a while since we've discussed Bayesianity.  My
> > own views have shifted a bit.  Would you mind elaborating
> > on your disagreement with Bayesianism, or providing some
> > links?  (Preferably in a new thread.)
> 
> Sure. Like I said, I think Bayesianism is normative _where
> applicable_, but that's not nearly as much of the time as one might
> wish. The problematic ideas are:
> 
> 1) All statements have a probability.

Useless if there is no way of ascertaining the probability if there is
one.  Does this meta statement have a probability and is it < 1?


> But Bayesianism encourages us to make up numbers where there is no
> such data. Not only do we not have any basis for calling these numbers
> probabilities, but we have excellent reason to refrain from doing so.
> One study showed that statements to which people attached "90%
> confidence" were right about 30% of the time; nor is this at all
> atypical.

If a mathematical method useful in decision making has become an -ism
then we are surely lost.

- samantha