Are there any considerations I am being dense to in the formulation of this theorem? As a LessWrong user, feel free to be really really negative to me to compensate for my denseness, even if you must speak fallaciously. If I am misled then there is no point in complaining that I acted with propriety. You are welcome to babble.
1. No one is teaching Bayesianism from true first principles, which would involve exploring the relevant consequences of every tempting(-from-some-perspective) mutation on the set of definitions and instruction steps that is called Bayesianism
2. “There are aspects of good reasoning that we don’t yet understand, even in principle.” — Nate Soares, A Guide to MIRI’s Research
3. Most epistemic systems in history have been half-misleading in a way that would have become obvious through more thorough foundational investigation
4. Therefor, Bayesianism is probably half-misleading in some way.
Are there any considerations I am being dense to in the formulation of this theorem? As a LessWrong user, feel free to be really really negative to me to compensate for my denseness, even if you must speak fallaciously. If I am misled then there is no point in complaining that I acted with propriety. You are welcome to babble.
1. No one is teaching Bayesianism from true first principles, which would involve exploring the relevant consequences of every tempting(-from-some-perspective) mutation on the set of definitions and instruction steps that is called Bayesianism
2. “There are aspects of good reasoning that we don’t yet understand, even in principle.” — Nate Soares, A Guide to MIRI’s Research
3. Most epistemic systems in history have been half-misleading in a way that would have become obvious through more thorough foundational investigation
4. Therefor, Bayesianism is probably half-misleading in some way.