...because it seems reasonable to believe that Bayesianism can explain much of the success of science and thus can claim a lot of science’s successes for itself.
True, but science was invented because people are really bad at judging evidence. I am troubled by the prospect of people using the core principles of science, e.g. Bayesianism, and applying them loosely and informally to vaguely understood conjectures and follow through on the implied actions.
Prediction, experimentation, peer review and the demand of empirical evidence is what makes science strong. If you think that you can use your rationality in a combination with Bayesianism and run with it then you confound your puny human brain with that of the hypothetical superintelligence that you dreamed up.
What I am arguing for is to be more conservative when it comes to the theoretically superior heuristics being discussed within this community.
True, but science was invented because people are really bad at judging evidence. I am troubled by the prospect of people using the core principles of science, e.g. Bayesianism, and applying them loosely and informally to vaguely understood conjectures and follow through on the implied actions.
Prediction, experimentation, peer review and the demand of empirical evidence is what makes science strong. If you think that you can use your rationality in a combination with Bayesianism and run with it then you confound your puny human brain with that of the hypothetical superintelligence that you dreamed up.
What I am arguing for is to be more conservative when it comes to the theoretically superior heuristics being discussed within this community.
Most of the science we’re impressed with was done before peer review, and I don’t think there’s much evidence that peer review is helpful on net.