[cubefox]

> Bullshit like this is exactly why I think scientists are better philosophers than philosophers are. The text you've quoted, is, frankly, not the writings of an intelligent person.

Which instantly refutes your position, because the alleged "bullshit" he quoted was written by a scientist, David Deutsch, not a by philosopher. Meanwhile, the defenders of "Bayesian philosophy of science" and (largely synonymous) "Bayesian epistemology" are mainly philosophers.

Am I correct in assuming you will now account for the above mistake and change your opinion to "Bullshit like this is exactly why I think philosophers are better philosophers than scientists are"?

[kerkeslager]

If you look up what Deutsch actually did, I think you'll find that he worked on quantum algorithms, making him more of a mathematician than a scientist since he never actually did any experimental work that I can see. But it's sort of irrelevant unless you're trying to make an appeal to Deutsch's authority as a scientist. You wouldn't commit such a logical fallacy, would you?

If you insist on calling Deutsch a scientist, fine, go ahead. That doesn't change my argument in any way, but you'll have to actually read the post you're responding to to know that.

> Am I correct in assuming you will now account for the above mistake and change your opinion to "Bullshit like this is exactly why I think philosophers are better philosophers than scientists are"?

Probably the better thing to do would be to simply remove that paragraph since people like you don't read past the first thing you can find to disagree with. The rest of the post stands on its own fine, but I can't edit it now.