No words for, against or mentioning the works of Sir Karl Popper seems an oversight. He wrote at length on democracy and rationality. Tl;dr—democracy is a peacable way to get the wrong leaders out and perhaps move to a slightly better society while having no power to get the right leaders in. Science is a contentious way to get false ideas out and perhaps move to a slightly more accurate world view while having no power to get the right ideas in. In both politics and science, question convention.
Lengthier piece on the compatability of Popper’s falsification and Less Wrong Bayesian: do.
i think most people here see falsificationism as a special, more specific case of bayesianism—in the same sense that scientific evidence is a proper subset of rational evidence.
No words for, against or mentioning the works of Sir Karl Popper seems an oversight. He wrote at length on democracy and rationality. Tl;dr—democracy is a peacable way to get the wrong leaders out and perhaps move to a slightly better society while having no power to get the right leaders in. Science is a contentious way to get false ideas out and perhaps move to a slightly more accurate world view while having no power to get the right ideas in. In both politics and science, question convention.
Lengthier piece on the compatability of Popper’s falsification and Less Wrong Bayesian: do.
i think most people here see falsificationism as a special, more specific case of bayesianism—in the same sense that scientific evidence is a proper subset of rational evidence.
http://deusdiapente.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/bayes-theorem-and-falsifiability-2.html
Thanks, I’ll try to work him in. (I assume your last sentence is directed to yourself, though.)