Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Perhaps, then, I don't fully agree with Aumann's Agreement Theorem.

Whoa there. Aumann's agreement theorem is a theorem. It is true, full stop. Whatever that term "SREoE" means (I keep going up and keep not seeing an explanation), either it doesn't map onto the hypotheses of Aumann's agreement theorem or you are attempting to disagree with a mathematical fact.

. Whatever that term "SREoE" means

I believe it was "Sufficiently reasonable evaluator of evidence" - which I was using roughly equivalently to Bayesian empiricist. I'm beginning to doubt that is what ibidem means by it.

TheOtherDave defined it way back in the thread to try to taboo "rationalist," since that word has such a multitude of denotations and connotations (including the LW intended meanings). Edit: terminology mostly defined here and here.

-3[anonymous]13y

For it to be a mathematical fact, it needs a mathematical proof. Go ahead...! Like it or not, rationality is not mathematics—it is full of estimations, assumptions, objective decisions, and wishful thinking. Thus, a "theorem" in evidence evaluation is not a mathematical theorem, obtained using unambiguous formal logic. If what you mean to say is that Aumann's Agreement "Theorem" is a fundamental building block of your particular flavor of rational thinking, then what this means is simply that I don't fully subscribe to your particular flavor of rational thinking. Nothing (mathematics nearly excepted) is "true, full stop." Remember? 1 is not a probability. That one's even more "true, full stop" than Aumann's ideas about rational disagreement.

0BerryPick613y

They're using it to mean "sufficiently reliable evaluator of evidence".

7

Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013

7

7

7

Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013

7

7