Evidence and all that

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
T1: In heaven all houses are yellow
T2: In heaven all houses are green.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, but in that case the two are equally simple.

If we changed it to:

T1: In heaven all houses are yellow.
T2: In heaven all houses are green and have doorbells that sound like tamborines.

I'd bet on T1 if I had to bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this what you're saying?

T1 'make some stuff up'
T2 'make more stuff up than T1 did'

T2 is more likely to be wrong than T1

chez

[Piers]

I think there is a trick you can use

Not A !or Not B = A !or B

So how about:

People either use some sort of induction deduction combination or they use evidence.

Or maybe even

If people use some sort of induction deduction combination, then they are not using evidence.

(Well clearly they are using evidence, but the evidence is indirect. The evidence they used as a basis for their induction, or the evidence they used as a parameter in their deduction.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
People either use some sort of induction deduction combination or they use evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if your joking or I was even less clear than I thought but no variation of the above is what I said.

chez

Attempt 2 at a response:

For every theory, there exists another theory (an infinity of them, actually) that is indistinguishable based on the evidence. To accept any theory at all, one needs some sort of inductive bias (which means what it sounds like), the classic example being Occam's razor.

My point is that there may be ways of learning, based on evidence, good inductive biases. Obviously relying on evidence must end at some level, though, or there would be infinite regress.

Back to proving that I suck at poker.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Attempt 2 at a response:

For every theory, there exists another theory (an infinity of them, actually) that is indistinguishable based on the evidence. To accept any theory at all, one needs some sort of inductive bias (which means what it sounds like), the classic example being Occam's razor.

My point is that there may be ways of learning, based on evidence, good inductive biases. Obviously relying on evidence must end at some level, though, or there would be infinite regress.


[/ QUOTE ]
Its true that if you are to distinguish between the theories that you need some method of doing so but if the theories don't make different claims about the world then we it may be that they can't be distinguished between.

So we end up using something like Ockhams razor but there's plenty of problems in deciding which theory is simpler which is why we need evidence, except of course in the cases we are discussing when there isn't any [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

When it comes to god, the theists will always claim god is simpler and ant-theist will always claim no god is simpler. Hence athiesm (as in not believing in god rather than believing in no god).

Its been interesting, thanks.

chez