Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Bayesian logic of evidential support does not require pre... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Bayesian logic of evidential support does not require precise values for prior probabilities

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian evidential support has an eliminative nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bayesian evidential support only needs bounds on the values of comparative plausibility ratios
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These bounds only play a significant role while evidence remains fairly weak
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Prior probabilities assigned to hypotheses reflect substantive theoretical commitments that cannot be reduced to mere bounds or intervals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When priors encode genuine disagreement between scientific paradigms, no amount of shared evidence forces convergence within finite data sets.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Cox's theorem and de Finetti's representation theorem jointly entail that coherent degrees of belief must be precise, not imprecise intervals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The eliminative asymptote toward convergence presupposes that competing hypotheses share a common likelihood function, which is not guaranteed across incommensurable models.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Keynes and Carnap both demonstrated that logical probability requires a determinate measure function over a structured language, making imprecision a formal deficiency rather than a permissible feature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Bayesian evidential support has an eliminative natureBayesian evidential support only needs bounds on the values of comparative plaus...Cox's theorem and de Finetti's representation theorem jointly entail that cohere...Keynes and Carnap both demonstrated that logical probability requires a determin...
    +4 moreShow less
    Prior probabilities assigned to hypotheses reflect substantive theoretical commi...The eliminative asymptote toward convergence presupposes that competing hypothes...These bounds only play a significant role while evidence remains fairly weakWhen priors encode genuine disagreement between scientific paradigms, no amount ...

    Similar

    Bayesian evidential support only needs bounds on the values of compara...81%The Bayesian account of evidential support extends the hypothetical-de...81%The evidential support or refutation of a hypothesis is relative to wh...79%Bayesian evidential support has an eliminative nature78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-inductive
    View source passageHide passage
    Thus, Bayesian logic of inductive support for hypotheses is a form of eliminative induction, where the evidence effectively refutes false alternatives to the true hypothesis. Because of its eliminative nature, the Bayesian logic of evidential support doesn’t require precise values for prior probabilities. It only needs to draw on bounds on the values of comparative plausibility ratios, and these bounds only play a significant role while evidence remains fairly weak. If the true hypothesis is ass
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit