I found this post very interesting It's about statistics, causal inference, and 'g'.
I've found it's hard to teach myself math without an objective. If I don't have a specific question I'm trying to answer, my eyes just start to skip over equations, trying to get to the "good part". Pretty soon I've left the boring parts I know far behind. I've also...
I think you've pretty much stated the exact opposite of my own moral-epistomological worldview.
I don't like the analogy with physics. Physical theories get tested against external reality in a way that makes them fundamentally different from ethical theories.
If you want to analogize between ethics and science, I want to compare it to the foundations of mathematics. So utilitarianism isn't relativity, it's ZFC. Even though ZFC proves PA is a consistent and true theory of the natural numbers, it's a huge mistake for a human to base their trust in PA on that!
There is almost no argument or evidence that can convince me to put more... (read more)
I haven't. I'll see if I can show up for the next one.
this was also the part of Dalliard's critique I found most convincing. Shalizi's argument seems to a refutation of a straw man.
One thing Dalliard mentions is that the 'g' derived from different studies are 'statistically indistinguishable'. What's the technical content of this statement?
thanks for the link.
Not that I feel particularly qualified to judge, but I'd say Dalliard has a way better argument. I wonder if Shalizi has written a response.
I found this post very interesting
It's about statistics, causal inference, and 'g'.
wow that's a neat service.
It looks like we may have enough people interested in Probability Theory, Though I doubt we all live in the same city. I live near DC.
Depending on how many people are interested/where they live, it might make sense to meet over video chat instead.
I'm 32.
I've found it's hard to teach myself math without an objective. If I don't have a specific question I'm trying to answer, my eyes just start to skip over equations, trying to get to the "good part". Pretty soon I've left the boring parts I know far behind. I've also skipped the less boring parts that i sorta know, and now I'm skipping forward even faster because I only understand half of what I'm reading. I wind up skimming the whole book, but not really absorbing much of it. I think I'd do better if I was planning on discussing what I'm reading with others.
So here's my idea: a math club. We... (read more)
So you are assuming that it will be wanting to prove the soundness of any successors? Even though it can't even prove the soundness of itself? But it can believe in it's own soundness in a Bayesian sense without being able to prove it. There is not (as far as I know) any Godelian obstacle to that. I guess that was your point in the first place.
What about all the angst people had over things like irrational numbers ,infinitesimals, non-smooth functions, infinite cardinalities, non-euclidian geometries?
I think what you're saying about needing some way to change our minds is a good point though. And I certainly wouldn't say that every single object-level belief I hold is more secure than every meta belief. I'll even grant you that for certain decisions, like how to set public health policy, some sort of QALY-based shut up and calculate approach is the right way to go.
But I don't think that's the way to change our minds about something like how we deal with homosexuality,... (read more)