Feyerabend's counterinduction and Bayesianism. Has anyone here thought about how these two views of science bear on each other?
Belief & double-blind randomized control group studies: response to IlyaShpitser
In a previous thread IlyaShpitser said >According to your blog, you don't believe in RCTs, right? What do you believe in?
This is part of the problem I'm trying to address. Belief/non-belief are inappropriate locutions to use in terms not only of the double-blind randomized control group method (DBRCGM), but of models and methods of science in general. "Belief in" a any scientific method is not even remotely relevant to science or the philosophy of science. Also, I did not say that the DBRCGM is entirely useless. All I'm really saying is it can be improved upon. Furthermore, what I "believe in" is almost entirely irrelevant to my appreciation of Bayesiansim and other forms of scientific fallibilistic flexibility. When we "believe in" something, we allay our curiosity and create unnecessary obstacles for the mind changes Bayesianism and fallibilistic flexibility encourage us to practice.
Yes.
Relevant: -Anything by David Hume -Carl G. Hempel. Laws and Their Role in Scientific Explanation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19536968/Carl-G-Hempel-Laws-and-Their-Role-in-Scientific-Explanation -Studies in the Logic of Explanation: http://www.sfu.ca/~jillmc/Hempel%20and%20Oppenheim.pdf -Causation as Folk Science: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/003004.pdf -Causation: The elusive grail of epidemiology: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1009970730507 -Causality and the Interpretation of Epidemiologic Evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513293/ -Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems: http://books.google.com/books?id=NMAf65cDmAQC&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false
So the underlying philosophies are extremely similar if not the same even though the methods, largely due to practical problems (lack or presence of mathematical tools)?
What are the differences and similarities between fallibilism and Bayesianism?
Thanks. I don't know either. That's why I don't come here that often. The karma points system doesn't serve the aims of science. It serves the "scientific consensus" myth which is mostly a glorified popularity contest without regard for fallibilism, iteration, paradigm shifting and counterinduction.