One-Magisterium Bayes argues for “strong Bayesianism” as an ontology, as opposed to using it “toolbox-style
You’re either saying something strange about Bayes, or using “ontology” weirdly. By the ordinary meaning of ontology, Bayes isn’t ontology, and is more like epistemology. A model of the world, what ontology usually means, is something you get out of an epistemology.
The first post, Mode Collapse and the Norm One Principle, is—in layman’s terms—an argument that we should promote discussion norms that discourage information-less criticism.
I’m not a fan of it myself, but sometimes the problem is that something is “not even wrong”.
In particular, the reader can’t always tell if ordinary things are being said in strange language , or strange things things are being said in ordinary language.
You’re either saying something strange about Bayes, or using “ontology” weirdly. By the ordinary meaning of ontology, Bayes isn’t ontology, and is more like epistemology. A model of the world, what ontology usually means, is something you get out of an epistemology.
I’m not a fan of it myself, but sometimes the problem is that something is “not even wrong”.
In particular, the reader can’t always tell if ordinary things are being said in strange language , or strange things things are being said in ordinary language.