gts wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:21:22 -0500, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
As I see it, science is about building **collective** subjective
understandings among a group of rational individuals coping with a
shared environment
That is consistent with the views of de Finetti and other
subjectivists. In their view our posteriors all converge in the end
anyway, so it shouldn't matter if there are no 'objective' probabilities.
Which I note is highly consistent with Charles Peirce's philosophy of
science, articulated at the end of the 1800's ...
So none of this is very new ;-)
ben
However, my view is not the most common one, I would suppose...
I'm quite sure you're correct about that.
A minority subjectivist, attempting to communicating his bayesian
conclusions to an non-subjectivist colleague in the majority, could be
met with the disconcerting response that his numbers are mere
statements about his psychology. :/ Thus there exists a strong
disincentive to be subjectivist in the natural sciences, no matter the
philosophical consequences.
-gts
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303