tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9174921843169847816.post6989200603970156615..comments2017-01-25T20:05:37.479+00:00Comments on Critical Rationalism: A Bayesian Argument Against InductionTony Lloydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9174921843169847816.post-61053090100178220442010-03-29T14:40:13.078+01:002010-03-29T14:40:13.078+01:00This may sound cheap, but Bayesianism works with e...This may sound cheap, but Bayesianism works with <i>equations</i>. An equation is, by definition, not inductive. It is, therefore, impossible to use Bayes' theorem to induce anything. An equation is a subset of deductively valid relations, because each side of an equation is, in the parlance of formal logic, semantically equivalent.Frank Buttermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02164374874036975006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9174921843169847816.post-42227948230384515042010-03-08T11:40:01.151+00:002010-03-08T11:40:01.151+00:00Presumably the H2* is used to make definite, non-p...Presumably the H2* is used to make definite, non-probabilistic predictions in future experiments. But H2* does not necessarily predict E for subsequent experiments. W might actually be a specific pattern of pseudo-random noise caused by outside factors, for example.<br /><br />This means that there are other possible patterns of pseudo-random noise, each of which implies a different sequence of Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13083135247841203010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9174921843169847816.post-56103045191244295602010-03-08T03:19:54.036+00:002010-03-08T03:19:54.036+00:00Nah.Nah.XXX XXXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431234799158713718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9174921843169847816.post-10810569403152253612009-12-01T04:13:15.618+00:002009-12-01T04:13:15.618+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com