| It's not that the model can't be fixed, but that it won't create and fix itself, unlike how people iterate on their own mental models. You can build a more elaborate model that can, but then that's still structurally constrained in terms of how it can adapt. You can build a maximally general model that automatically captures arbitrary patterns, and estimates using them, but: - that's not what people do and mean when using Bayesian inference in argumentation; they're the ones capturing and maintaining the patterns instead, manually and arbitrarily - it kind of renders the whole thing meaningless; you basically get a machine learning model out of that, and introspectibility is not really their thing + it becomes quite literally arbitrarily adapting (and thus arbitrarily inferring) One may also recognize that to be resembling a human, with whom you get the same issues. Kind of how one gets to arguing about empiricals and logic in the first place. This is what I describe in my other comment that I linked to, that debates using these instruments are basically just long winded coordination processes between people in the best of times, not some sort of divination tools. I'm not the guy from above btw, but I am the guy who had their comment turn dead. I don't know why it did though, I doubt this subthread sees that much traffic, and I did not see it being flagged since I posted it. I'd assume it was automatically or manually moderated out. |
Regarding the dead thing - sometimes that happens to me when I make rapid edits to fix typos and such.