From: Amara Graps (amara@amara.com)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 02:52:34 MDT
Lee Corbin:
>Though relevant, were you making a point or offering any criticism
> by means of posting that, that you would care to explain?
I have a stack of papers and about 200K of other notes in my computer to
say something, especially since the last time I posted that excerpt. But
I've had a heavy travel schedule this summer and I leave for two more
conferences tomorrow, and I've had to continually postpone what I want
to say about it.
In a nutshell, I am convinced that Popper's falsification concepts and
the Bayesian logic perspective don't overlap. They are really two
different ways of looking at the world, and of formulating scientific
problems. I've even heard some use the phrase: "Bayesianism makes
falsification obsolete."
In any case, the book that I posted the excerpt from is a clearly
written book about thinking of science and other aspects of life in a
Bayesian perspective. It also writes in its appendix (the one addressing
criticisms of Bayesian logic) a chapter exposing many (many) holes in
Popper's falsification logical framework. Because of that, I've dropped
giving weight to Popper's logical ideas.
Besides the Jaynes link I posted previously about probability as a logic
of science, here is something new (to me) that Serafino gave me on the
topic that could be helpful:
'Bayesian view of everything' by Carlton Caves
http://info.phys.unm.edu/~caves/
(although Caves is wrong regarding de Finetti's politics, I guess
Caves didn't know him!)
Amara
--
***********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD email: amara@amara.com
Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/
***********************************************************************
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage."
--Anais Nin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:42 MST