[FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will

[glen]

You're probably more competent at parsing it than I am, which is why I said "enjoyed" rather than some other stronger description of my reaction. But when you say "plain language" and "common sense", I blanch a bit. I thought they were talking about things like actual truth, truth-following, reliability, justifiability (which I think of as "walkable", i.e. you can parse it to find where a false belief went wrong), etc. I think their "convergence" is simply saying that subjective [proba|plausi]bility provides a better platform unless those traditional values converge. But it's possible he's saying the traditional value scoring has to guide the theories toward subjective [proba|plausi]bility. Had I more energy, I'd spend the time to figure that out. Maybe you can simply tell me what it means. >8^D

On 1/26/24 14:48, Steve Smith wrote:
> 
> On 1/26/24 3:13 PM, glen wrote:
>> I enjoyed this brief assessment of subjective probability/plausibility:
>>
>> https://home.snafu.de/erich/ibe_2023.pdf
>>
>> And I kindasortamaybe agree with their conclusion in favor of "convergence":
>>
>> "Convergence: Traditional epistemic values can over time yield evaluations of theories differing from those of subjective plausibility and probability, yet theories that count as overall epistemically best at a time must in finitely many steps revise to theories that are most likely true given the available evidence."
> 
> I only felt half-able to parse through this set of esoteric arguments/assertions/discussions from the rarified world of Philosophy of Language and Value Theory?
> 
> Is it saying in "plain language" that starting with abstract evaluations of the quality of a theory/explanation/narrative, one often ends up settling on such things which do not align with common sense yet following a process of combining those abstractions with measurements/observations one can converge on something "closer to truth"?


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ