[bigbadfeline]

> That doesn't change the fact that P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A)/P(B).

It didn't take long before a strawman got pulled out of nowhere. That's so typical, if one disagrees with the wild conjectures of the rationalists, which they call "axioms", they blame you for rejecting the Pythagorean Theorem or some such. Dishonesty is the defining feature of that "movement"

[zahlman]

> It didn't take long before a strawman got pulled out of nowhere.

It's not a strawman. It's a central example of what I had in mind when I used the word "axiom".

> if one disagrees with the wild conjectures of the rationalists, which they call "axioms"

They don't refer to wild conjectures as axioms.

> they blame you for rejecting the Pythagorean Theorem or some such.

There is no "blame" going on here. Someone said I sounded like a cult member (which incidentally is insulting and inappropriate on HN; but I thought I would try to steer the discussion back on course) and I correctly explained why that perception is irrelevant. When I said

> The entire point of the exercise is to establish that certain things are true, and that this is not because of faith, and that disbelieving them cannot make them false.

That is, in fact, inarguably true. Bayes' Law is an example of that exact sort of thing. If you don't believe that conditional probabilities can be worked out that way, that won't change the fact that conditional probabilities can in fact be worked out that way; and it won't change the fact that in the long run I will be able to exploit your fallacy in games of chance.

The other poster gave no example of supposedly false or unsound axioms, so I cannot be strawmanning by failing to respond to them. My assertion is that such false or unsound axioms are not, in fact, in play. The burden of proof lies with those claiming their existence.

[stackghost]

Go back and reread yourself in this thread.

1. Someone says they don't like rationalism

2. You say there's no such thing

3. Someone else suggests your defense of rationalism is materially similar to how scientologists defend their cult

4. You say "nuh-uh because Bayes' theorem is true"???

That's such a weird non-sequitur. Nothing before had anything to do with Bayes. That is just a straw man you constructed to argue with.

[zahlman]

> Go back and reread yourself in this thread.

I know perfectly well what I said in this thread and don't need to re-read it. It wasn't long.

> You say "nuh-uh because Bayes' theorem is true"???

No, that isn't at all what I said.

First off, it makes no sense for the other party to characterize my "defense of rationalism" in any manner, because I was not offering such a thing. When I say that something doesn't exist, that isn't defending the thing. The thing cannot be "defended" if it doesn't exist in the first place!

Second, I very clearly did not deny any "material similarity". I said that any such material similarity does not matter.

Third, the truth of Bayes' theorem is not why I am correct, and that's also clearly not what I asserted. Rather, Bayes' theorem is an example of what I am correct about.

There is no non-sequitur there; you misrepresent the argument completely. I did not construct a strawman; I merely gave an example of what "rational beliefs" (which are, again, not articles of faith) entail. The point is that, by the same reasoning, you could equally well make out the hard sciences in general to be "cults". If you think you can look at a title for a work like "The Sequences" and instantly map that to "ooh, scary religious canon!", why does the same not apply to, say, Euclid's Elements?

The only strawmanning here is on your part.

I have no idea what strange or harmful articles of faith other people ITT seem to have in mind. Someone mentioned Roko's Basilisk, and as far as I can tell this is the closest the thread got; but that frankly doesn't qualify, either. It's just a proposed consequence of a particular decision theory, and most of the people who care about that decision theory seem to think it's fallacious. (Whether they can propose a fallacy within that theory, or think that this is a proof-by-contradiction refutation of the theory, I don't really know. Personally I think the latter is far more likely.) If it were actually an article of faith, you would see the equivalent of street preachers using it to solicit donations to MIRI. As far as I've been shown, that doesn't actually happen.

But since I haven't been given any better examples than that, I can't argue against them. No, "the Zizians exist(ed)" doesn't count here, first off because nobody's identified any articles of faith they held; second because nobody's drawn any connection between those and any actual principles of rationality.

[stackghost]

>I know perfectly well what I said in this thread and don't need to re-read it. It wasn't long.

Then you should realize your replies have been obnoxious, and that's why you're getting the responses you're getting. Have a fantastic day.

[zahlman]

To realize that, it would have to be true. But it isn't, so I can't.

[nradov]

You're really missing the point. Only moronic cult members believe that the real world can be reduced to conditional probabilities, or that the probabilities of anything important can be calculated to a useful level of precision.