• Corpus ID: 119087956

Don't choose theories: Normative inductive reasoning and the status of physical theories

@article{Martins2017DontCT,
  title={Don't choose theories: Normative inductive reasoning and the status of physical theories},
  author={Andr{\'e} C. R. Martins},
  journal={arXiv: History and Philosophy of Physics},
  year={2017}
}
Evaluating theories in physics used to be easy. Our theories provided very distinct predictions. Experimental accuracy was so small that worrying about epistemological problems was not necessary. That is no longer the case. The underdeterminacy problem between string theory and the standard model for current possible experimental energies is one example. We need modern inductive methods for this problem, Bayesian methods or the equivalent Solomonoff induction. To illustrate the proper way to… 
Embracing undecidability: Cognitive needs and theory evaluation
TLDR
This essay will discuss how to accept that knowledge is almost only limited to formal systems, and even in those, there will always be undecidable propositions.

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 35 REFERENCES
A Philosophical Treatise of Universal Induction
TLDR
The case for Solomonoff Induction is argued, a formal inductive framework which combines algorithmic information theory with the Bayesian framework and how this approach addresses many issues that have plagued other inductive systems, such as the black ravens paradox and the confirmation problem.
Old Evidence and Logical Omniscience in Bayesian Confirmation Theory
TLDR
There is an important class of scientific arguments, cases in which the authors are dealing with the apparent confirmation of new hypotheses by old evidence, for which the Bayesian account of confirmation seems hopelessly inadequate, and this essay shall examine this difficulty, what I call the problem of old evidence.
Bayesians sometimes cannot ignore even very implausible theories (even ones that have not yet been thought of)
In applying Bayes’s theorem to the history of science, Bayesians sometimes assume – often without argument – that they can safely ignore very implausible theories. This assumption is false, both in
Thou Shalt Not Take Sides: Cognition, Logic and the Need for Changing How We Believe
We believe, in the sense of supporting ideas and considering them correct while dismissing doubts about them. We take sides about ideas and theories as if that was the right thing to do. And yet,
Does Algorithmic Probability Solve the Problem of Induction
TLDR
It will become clear that ALP is extremely effective for computing probabilities of future events — the best technique the authors have, and it gives us an ideal theoretical solution to the problem of inductive inference.
The Algebra of Probable Inference
TLDR
In Algebra of Probable Inference, Richard T. Cox develops and demonstrates that probability theory is the only theory of inductive inference that abides by logical consistency, thereby establishing, for the first time, the legitimacy of probability theory as formalized by Laplace in the 18th century.
Theoretical Omniscience: Old Evidence or New Theory
I will show that, in the Problem of Old Evidence, unless a rational agent has a property I will call theoretical omniscience (a stronger version of logical omniscience), a problem with
On Universal Prediction and Bayesian Confirmation
Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
TLDR
The hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative: It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade and is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation.
Stop the tests: Opinion bias and statistical tests
When statisticians quarrel about hypothesis testing, the debate usually focus on which method is the correct one. The fundamental question of whether we should test hypothesis at all tends to be
...
1
2
3
4
...