For me there is a lot of uncertainty about the meaning of reasoning in terms of models, reasoning in terms of propositions, meaning of being a (not) Bayesian in practice. For example: Is reasoning in terms of propositions necessarily takes away from reasoning in terms of models? Can it be be part of reasoning in terms of models? Are there other modes of reasoning?
This is an obstacle for figuring out what one can implement in practice differently if they become convinced with every argument you make in this post.
The following might help with this. Could you provide a concrete hypothetical such that: 1. The subject must select one action. Actions A1, A2, A3 are the best and mutually exclusive. Not necessarily every one of them is good, just any other action is worse. 2. An average person uncontaminated by Bayesianism, nor arguments of your post, nor critical rationalism, will choose A1. 3. An average Bayesian, however you define that for the purposes of your post, will choose A2. 4. You will choose A3. ?
For me there is a lot of uncertainty about the meaning of reasoning in terms of models, reasoning in terms of propositions, meaning of being a (not) Bayesian in practice.
For example:
Is reasoning in terms of propositions necessarily takes away from reasoning in terms of models?
Can it be be part of reasoning in terms of models?
Are there other modes of reasoning?
This is an obstacle for figuring out what one can implement in practice differently if they become convinced with every argument you make in this post.
The following might help with this.
Could you provide a concrete hypothetical such that:
1. The subject must select one action.
Actions A1, A2, A3 are the best and mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily every one of them is good, just any other action is worse.
2. An average person uncontaminated by Bayesianism, nor arguments of your post, nor critical rationalism, will choose A1.
3. An average Bayesian, however you define that for the purposes of your post, will choose A2.
4. You will choose A3.
?