The Failures of Bayesianism (SCCC pt 2)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ค. 2024
- This is part 2 of my Square Cumulative Case for Christianity. In this video, I lay out some more objections to Bayesianism, and offer my thoughts.
0:00 - Problems from Idealization
7:36 - Inconsistent Intuitions
![fellow fellow - Proud [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9uZF7BlUQPE/mqdefault.jpg)
YAY ANOTHER VIDEOOOOOOO
WOOT WOOOOOT
Every video i am learning new terms. Last time "the problem of the priors" this time "jeffrey conditionalization". I am amazed in which different directions philosophy and mathematics drifted on bayesiansm. 6:34 is where i actually see the biggest problem with applying bayesianism to philosophy. How one should update once credence is a really complicated topic and requires knowlegde about which parameters are dependant on which other parameters. Should the existence of natural evil lower once credence in the existence of god, should one raise it, or should there be no influence at all? This and many other complicated questions will arise, which will make bayesianism a really difficult fit.
Don’t worry; soon we’ll get at exactly what predictions theism makes and so we’ll get to see what affects the probability of theism!
You should take a look at logical induction by Scott Garrabrant. It's an extension of Bayesianism that works with logical uncertainty (though this description is probably imprecise).
I enjoy these very technical videos greatly and grow from them
Glad to hear it! :)
Bayesian calculus doesnt build knowledge, it distributes it, in a fancy way.
If you want to take that viewpoint, then neither do mathematicians ever build knowledge. After all, every single one of their theorems was already entailed by their axioms.
@@kevinvanhorn2193 very true. Knowledge is based on acknowledgement. Every single mathematical apport is due to a non standard worldview lifeform rather that empirical proccess. Thats widely known since Cauchy times.
Wellp, this doesn't really need but one timestamp I guess.
0:20 "Two categories, Category 1: Prior probability"
I don't think these two categories are an accurate representation of the comments on your videos regarding this subject and I think you are intentionally dodging all the feedback you've received on this and other videos regarding calculating "probability."
My objection (that others have raised as well) is that you're using Bayesianism to conclude a completely unknown category of events (the supernatural) when Bayesian epistemology does not do that and is not intended for that. Essentially you are just lying about probability calculations outright, there is no probability if you're just invoking magic(a complete unknown) as the conclusion AND explanation without first demonstrating magic does exist beforehand and can do the things you are claiming it does.
In the same fashion: if you are just using "prior probabilities / intuitions" interchangeably for "presuppositions" then great, you're making an argument that is nothing more than tautology and you've made all these long calculations of infinites and equations and mental gymnastics for what can be boiled down to "if you believe the thing then the thing did the thing."
Now you're probably not trying to use a presupp argument, I wouldn't think you would need this much extra work for it, but this is turning out to be nearly identical to one.
@@faithnreason446 No, i'm "basically saying" he can't use the conclusion in his premises. Read my OP then talk, thanks.
@faithnreason446 I have corrected you and it's the same correction twice now. The possibility of the supernatural (the conclusion) is fine, but you can't use this possibility as a presupposition for the argument, assuming this it negates the need for the argument itself.
@faithnreason446 "there is no probability if you're just invoking magic(a complete unknown) as the conclusion AND explanation without first demonstrating magic does exist beforehand and can do the things you are claiming it does."
Where's the discrepancy?
Seems like you're not reading either my replies or my OP and I had to explain it to you three times.
@faithnreason446 Are you just illiterate? He is arguing for "X exist"
If you put "X exist" in the premises of the argument AND the conclusion it negates the point of the argument.
Watch:
"Argument: do dragons exist?"
P1. I found a footprint.
P2. Dragons exist.
P3. Some wood is burnt.
C: Dragons exist.
The "possibility" of the supernatural isn't what he's trying to determine, it's the actuality.
The "possibility" means ultimately nothing outside of semantical coherence. (What "supernatural" means). You don't determine "unknowns" in the Bayesian formula of Epistemology by inputting unknowns.
Claiming "you're denying the possibility" isn't the point and you've been told and corrected 4 times now. At this point either you can't address what I said honestly or you just lack the critical thinking.
@@faithnreason446 "I didn't see it"
Your lack of critical thinking is not my problem.
maybe try to stop being a Christian.
You are so smart already, can you imagine if you became free and completely honest to yourself?
I was a Christian once, and then I slowly realized that half of what I thought was true was completely wrong. Just start being honest with yourself
LOL.. you don't know how to counter his points. Just blaming it on his belief.
Typical case of ad hominem fallacy.
Prove him wrong then
@@pinklotus7671 Its not that, it's that he is using mental gymnastics and dealing with huge amounts of cognitive dissonance every video. I've countered his points on most of his videos with no response, many, many people have done this too. He just isn't interested in the topic in an honest way. He's doing it to cope.
@@ShouVertica You've countered nothing. The atheist has brought the west to ruin, you've done so through cheap rhetoric and degeneracy. People are finally beginning to suffer and look for alternatives, we long for the shackles forced on us by degenerates like you broken. The secular, liberal, democratic and republican abomination will fall and humanity shall rejoice for it.
It's a pretty big leap to think he isn't genuine in his belief because you found fault in your own. So let me get this straight. You think he is being inauthentic because, in your eyes, Christianity is false? What sense does that make? Let's say Christianity is false. The reason behind what you said would still be kinda dumb because you're using your own negative experiences to speak for why someone else believes what they believe. I know I'm being redundant but I can't stress how little @sehrgeheim3204 actually said.