For what I’m aiming for, I don’t think a sequence is necessary. A lot of the groundwork on Bayesianism has already been laid elsewhere, so I am able to restrict my discussion to the following areas:
What is traditionally meant by informal fallacies?
What are a few examples of these informal fallacies?
How can we express these allegedly fallacious lines of reasoning in Bayesian terms?
After expressing them in said terms, are any these informal fallacies actually fallacious?
If I narrow my scope to these questions, I think I can give a satisfactory overview of the answers in one post. A more thorough investigation (which I perceive that you are aiming for) is valuable and very well might need its own sequence.
But for now, I’m trying to aim very low. I hope that in the future, someone writing that more comprehensive post can say:
Hey! Remember that post PP wrote on informal fallacies as errors in Bayesian reasoning? I’m going to go much more in-depth than he did. Go read his post first as a primer so I don’t have to re-tread covered ground, and then come back here for a more thorough analysis.
For what I’m aiming for, I don’t think a sequence is necessary. A lot of the groundwork on Bayesianism has already been laid elsewhere, so I am able to restrict my discussion to the following areas:
What is traditionally meant by informal fallacies?
What are a few examples of these informal fallacies?
How can we express these allegedly fallacious lines of reasoning in Bayesian terms?
After expressing them in said terms, are any these informal fallacies actually fallacious?
If I narrow my scope to these questions, I think I can give a satisfactory overview of the answers in one post. A more thorough investigation (which I perceive that you are aiming for) is valuable and very well might need its own sequence.
But for now, I’m trying to aim very low. I hope that in the future, someone writing that more comprehensive post can say: