explorehwa.blogg.se - Philisophizing the scientific process

Could we have felt evidence for SDP!=P? My impression is that the main technical argument failed to convince them, but their high esteem for Scott prevents them from being blunt about this.

Other computer scientists more explicitly raised questions "with regard to the main technical argument in a recent post by Scott" by asking (3) (Kuhn-light) It fits into the paradigm that scientists already have." Why do we think N NE NP? They actually started by asking themselves: "Why do scientists believe any particular theory?" and listed the following actual reasons: "(1) By doing Popperian experiments- experiments that really can fail.

not sure that’s how probability works."Īs a reaction, some computer scientists sympathetic to Scott wrote serious posts about

John Oliver’s deadpan response was classic: "I’m. The central Bayesian argument from the post left me with a feeling similar to the following quote from the post (replace "probability" with "science"): He claims: "This post supersedes my 2006 post on the same topic, which I hereby retire." His post seems to be strongly influenced by previous intellectual exchanges with a convinced Bayesian "climate change" critic. In March 2014, he wrote a more ambitious post about Back in September 2006, Scott Aaronson wrote a famous blog post giving 10