Whether there is nothing when things are interpreted formally
I didn’t say there is nothing when things are interpreted formally. I said the formalism of Bayesian probability does not include a formula for generating novel hypotheses, and that is easy to prove.
If a framing of a problem dissatisfactory it can be incrementally updated away from too.
Can it? That doesn’t seem to be how things work in practice. There is a set of revolutions in science, and inasmuch as they are revolutions,they are not slow incremental changes.
Or stated in another way every hypothesis always has a positive probability, we never stop considering any hypothesis
We don’t have every hypothesis pre existing in our heads. If you were some sort of ideal reasoner with an infinite memory , you could do things that way, but you’re not. Cognitive limitations may well explain the existence of revolutionary paradigm shifts.
But trying to ask a question like “what is the best thought that explains these observations” is resistant to be made formal because “thought” is so nebolous
That what I was saying. You can’t formalise hypothesis fornation, yet it is necessary. Therefore, formal Bayes is not the one epistemology to rule then all, because all formalisations have that shortcoming.
I didn’t say there is nothing when things are interpreted formally. I said the formalism of Bayesian probability does not include a formula for generating novel hypotheses, and that is easy to prove.
Can it? That doesn’t seem to be how things work in practice. There is a set of revolutions in science, and inasmuch as they are revolutions,they are not slow incremental changes.
We don’t have every hypothesis pre existing in our heads. If you were some sort of ideal reasoner with an infinite memory , you could do things that way, but you’re not. Cognitive limitations may well explain the existence of revolutionary paradigm shifts.
That what I was saying. You can’t formalise hypothesis fornation, yet it is necessary. Therefore, formal Bayes is not the one epistemology to rule then all, because all formalisations have that shortcoming.