On LW we frequently invent new vocabulary in a way that’s confusing for outsiders. It seems to me like “One Magisterium Bayesianism” is a new term that’s not taken from anywhere and is likely relatively opaque.
Maybe it would make more sense to speak of Bayesian Monism?
Doesn’t “monism” pretty much mean belief in only one kind of thing rather than employing only one procedure for finding truth? I think calling the position described here “Bayesian Monism” would be actively misleading.
I think that tistanm doesn’t just advocates Bayesianism as a method but advocates that reality is shaped in a way that it’s basic nature is represented by probability.
No doubt, but that isn’t the same as monism. You could have a world made of many kinds of stuff in which Bayesian inference is optimal, or a world made of one kind of stuff in which Bayesian inference produces terrible results.
On LW we frequently invent new vocabulary in a way that’s confusing for outsiders. It seems to me like “One Magisterium Bayesianism” is a new term that’s not taken from anywhere and is likely relatively opaque.
Maybe it would make more sense to speak of Bayesian Monism?
Doesn’t “monism” pretty much mean belief in only one kind of thing rather than employing only one procedure for finding truth? I think calling the position described here “Bayesian Monism” would be actively misleading.
I think that tistanm doesn’t just advocates Bayesianism as a method but advocates that reality is shaped in a way that it’s basic nature is represented by probability.
This would be the exact opposite of what Bayesianisms says (that is, probability is an optimal epistemic construction).
No doubt, but that isn’t the same as monism. You could have a world made of many kinds of stuff in which Bayesian inference is optimal, or a world made of one kind of stuff in which Bayesian inference produces terrible results.