[HN Gopher] Against Bayesianism - David Deutsch ___________________________________________________________________ Against Bayesianism - David Deutsch Author : jger15 Score : 55 points Date : 2022-04-25 01:07 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (josephnoelwalker.com) (TXT) w3m dump (josephnoelwalker.com) | JoshCole wrote: | He doesn't actually argue against the Bayesian view of | statistics: | | > The word 'Bayesianism' is used for a variety of things, a whole | spectrum of things at one end of which I have no quarrel with | whatsoever and at the other end of which I think is just plain | inductivism. So at the good end, Bayesianism is just a word for | using conditional probabilities correctly. So if you find that | your milkman was born in the same small village as you, and you | are wondering what kind of a coincidence that is, and so on, | you've got to look at the conditional probabilities, rather than | the absolute probabilities. So there isn't just one chance in so | many million, but there's a smaller chance. | | His problem seems to be the extension of it to epistemology: | | > At the other end of the spectrum, a thing which is called | Bayesianism is what I prefer to call 'Bayesian epistemology', | because it's the epistemology that's wrong, not Bayes' theorem. | Bayes' theorem is true enough. But Bayesian epistemology is just | the name of a mistake. It's a species of inductivism and | currently the most popular species. But the idea of Bayesian | epistemology is that, first of all, it completely swallows the | justified true belief theory of knowledge. | | His problem with inductivism is that when you follow it you don't | try to make theories more believable by getting rid of ones that | don't fit, but by confirming instances in which your theory does | fit: | | > It's inductivism with a particular measure of how strongly you | believe a theory and with a particular kind of framework for how | you justify theories: you justify theories by finding confirming | instances. So that is a mistake because if theories had | probabilities - which they don't - then the probability of a | theory ('probability' or 'credence', in this philosophy they're | identical, they're synonymous)... if you find a confirming | instance, the reason your credence goes up is because some of the | theories that you that were previously consistent with the | evidence are now ruled out. | | > And so there's a deductive part of the theory whose credence | goes up. But the instances never imply the theory. So you want to | ask: "The part of the theory that's not implied logically by the | evidence - why does our credence for that go up?" Well, | unfortunately it goes down. And that's the thing that Popper and | Miller proved in the 1980s. A colleague and I have been trying to | write a paper about this for several years to explain why this is | so in more understandable terms. | | He cites this paper as an example of a proof, but claims it isn't | very approachable (which is why he is working on one with more | understandable terms). | | https://sci-hub.3800808.com/10.1038/302687a0 | SubiculumCode wrote: | I don't usually make this kind of comment, but the comment to | which I am responding should be occupying the top spot on this | forum, not the trash flamewar comment that currently occupies | the top spot. If your moderation system can't differentiate | actual expertise from flamewar trolling, then is it fair to say | that the moderation system is not working? | | edit: now its working :) | andybak wrote: | :-) | | There's a reason HN asks people not to make meta-comments on | voting patterns etc. They are usually out of date by the time | most people see them. | pmoriarty wrote: | The HN Guidelines[1] say: | | _" Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It | never does any good, and it makes boring reading."_ | | [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | qsort wrote: | > His problem seems to be the extension of it to epistemology | | Isn't that a bit of a strawman? Bayesian epistemology as stated | would require someone to believe something like "drawing | without replacement from this urn, I got 100 white balls and 1 | black ball, therefore there is a nonzero probability that this | urn contains only white balls", which is not a belief I can | imagine anybody to seriously hold. | pmoriarty wrote: | See _" The gambler's fallacy is not a fallacy"_[1] (which was | recently discussed[2] on HN). | | [1] - https://www.kevindorst.com/stranger_apologies/the- | gamblers-f... | | [2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30973324 | rictic wrote: | What's surprising about that belief? | MatteoFrigo wrote: | Here is my understanding of what Deutsch and the paper by | Popper/Miller are trying to say. | | There are three concepts involved: an evidence "e", for | example "I extracted 1 black ball"; a hypothesis "h", for | example "the urn does not contain only white balls"; a theory | "h <- e" that, by means of logic or otherwise, deduces the | hypothesis from the evidence. Your (qsort) theory is that if | you see a black ball then the hypothesis is correct. | | Everybody, including you, me, and Deutsch, agree that if the | probability of the evidence goes up, then the probability of | the hypothesis goes up as well. | | What Deutsch and Popper/Miller are also saying, however, is | that if the probability of the evidence goes up then the | probability of the _theory_ goes _down_ (proof in the paper). | | I need to study the paper more carefully, because I am not | 100% sure that it is strictly correct (there are many factors | that would transform a < into <= if they were 1, and I | suspect that some are), but I believe the weaker statement | that if the evidence goes up the probability of the theory | does not go up at all. | | In any case, this conclusion is consistent with what all | scientists have believed forever: the only way to increase | confidence in a theory is to try to break it. Or at least | they believed this until fact checkers and censorship came | along and threw the baby away with the bathwater. | mgh2 wrote: | pmoriarty wrote: | He only started talking about Bayesianism about 29 minutes in | to the podcast. | | Don't blame him for that... the interviewer asked him all sorts | of tangential questions before finally asking him about | Bayesianism directly. | | But even some of the earlier things he talks about | (particularly Popper's objections to inductivism) are actually | relevant to his critique of "Bayesian epistemology", which he | claims is "a species of inductivism" (which, to his mind, | Popper demolished). | mnl wrote: | So that's the best appraisal you can give of David Deutsch: | "Just an old man seeking attention"? | | Well, leaving aside the usual embarrassment I feel when it | comes to the impromptu nonsense a fair share of HN commentators | think it's worthwhile to contribute here when there's a piece | of news involving physics or physicists, that's an ageist take | without any content whatsoever. | | There's more old people who know what they're talking about | than young people. That's just the obvious consequence of | having been around reading and thinking about stuff more time. | You'll notice it eventually because as the song goes, time | waits for no one. | mgh2 wrote: | Fair enough, my initial comment was "just a man", reversed. | | Give it a try, perhaps you are more patient. Today's | oversaturated information makes listeners harsh critics. | mnl wrote: | Yep, we're getting too impatient and that's not helpful | when it comes to think deeply about what we've been taught. | Yet that's the most important part of any job IMO. I'll | check it out, maybe you're right and he's rambling. That | would be surprising to me, which is the reason I replied to | your post. | throwanem wrote: | I don't think he's rambling. He isn't sure what | familiarity his audience will have with the intellectual | underpinnings of his argument, so he recaps those before | embarking on the argument proper, in order to make sure | the audience can follow. | | Granted, he does tell a couple of anecdotes in the | process, but maybe that's his style. I think it's fair to | consider impatience implicated here - for what it's | worth, when I find myself feeling that way about coverage | of stuff I already know but not everyone is guaranteed | to, I usually just skip ahead or scroll ahead, checking | in here and there, until I hit something on point or that | I _don 't_ already know. (Usually the second one!) | | Impatience is an emotion, and while we can't help much | what we feel or how we feel it, we _can_ most of the time | treat what we feel as _input_. Think of it, if you want, | like a Datadog alert. How do we handle those? By | investigating to understand the root cause and taking | whatever action that requires in the context, if any. If | we let them drive our behavior directly without taking | the time for considered action, we easily risk causing | more problems than we 're likely to solve. | | Granted, I don't entirely love this metaphor, which is no | less flawed than any. Maybe too some dork on Twitter will | use this as an example of the mechanistic techbro | attitude endemic to the diseased discourse of Hacker News | comments, or something; it does lend itself somewhat to | such misrepresentation. | | But despite that lossiness I think it's not wholly | without use, because it _does_ point at least vaguely | toward a way in which we can manage and make valuable use | of even the most unpleasant among our emotions, and one | that 's served me well over the years since I stumbled | upon the concept in some writing or other, I've long | since forgotten where. | | (I don't think Deutsch was rambling, but _I_ certainly | am, in an effort to distract myself from a quite | unpleasant facial pain I can 't do anything meaningful | about until Thursday. Please excuse me.) | melony wrote: | Deutsch is one of the fathers of quantum computing. It is | like telling Claude Shannon to get off your lawn because he | didn't directly invent 5G. | andybak wrote: | That's not the comment I was expecting to see at the top. | | I haven't read TFA yet but I popped in to say how much respect | I've got for David Deutsch and what an influence he has been on | my intellectual development. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | I read the transcript and he doesn't seem to be rambling any | more than anyone else speaking off the top of their head, | rather than writing a carefully edited essay. | | Also what mnl said. I hope their comment helps you see your | comment in the context of how it would appear to people who | read HN with a hostile attitude and look for reasons to reject | it (not mnl obviously). | oh_sigh wrote: | I'm 25 seconds in and I couldn't agree more. When will he get | to the point? It feels like an eternity. | SubiculumCode wrote: | /s for ya | PheonixPharts wrote: | This is an awful take, and I hope other readers ignore it, and | give the podcast a listen/read. | | It's a long podcast, and if you skim the transcript you can see | that the discussion doesn't start until much later. | | I'm a pretty strong Bayesian, and have heard more than my fair | share of vague, hand wavy, and stubborn frequentist arguments | against Bayesian statistics. When I see an "Against | Bayesianism" rant, I'm already biased against it from seeing so | many awful arguments thrown out there, mostly to troll | Bayesians. | | This is absolutely _not_ one of those. This is a very | thoughtful and clearly articulated discussion of the | applications of, what Deutsch easily agrees, is a correct | statistical methodology to larger epistemological questions. | | It is long, so I only had a chance to skim this but it is | incredibly obvious that David Deutsch is not "seeking | attention", but has very legitimate concerns with the mindless | application of Bayesian reasoning to larger epistemological | problems in science. I'll certainly be revisiting this later | for a closer listen. | Veedrac wrote: | > This is a very thoughtful and clearly articulated | | Can you point to a part that you think fits that description? | Because it read as complete nonsense to me. | floxy wrote: | >I'm already biased against it from seeing so many awful | arguments thrown out there | | So you are telling me your priors are based on frequency of | occurrence? ;-) | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-26 23:00 UTC)