The guy has never displayed anything resembling workable knowledge of probability theory nor statistics. "Think exclusively in terms of probabilities" is something he says to make him sound more intelligent and sophisticated, like he's got an "in" with the Bayesian crowd.
People like Luke Muehlhauser and Eliezer Yudkowski have demonstrated that they've put in the work with regards to this stuff. Loftus not so much. I wish he'd shut up, he's so desperate for attention and desperate for the approval of his far more educated and rigorous peers, ugh. It's disgusting. A blind man that has convinced himself and tries to convince others that he can see, even though the words he uses clearly reveal him fumbling in the dark.
He is embarrassing. In his recent debates with Rauser, he didn't seem to understand what Rauser's point was half the time, and responded by changing the subject or by mumbling his usual mantras about "science denying".
2 comments:
"Exclusively in terms of probabilities"
The guy has never displayed anything resembling workable knowledge of probability theory nor statistics.
"Think exclusively in terms of probabilities" is something he says to make him sound more intelligent and sophisticated, like he's got an "in" with the Bayesian crowd.
People like Luke Muehlhauser and Eliezer Yudkowski have demonstrated that they've put in the work with regards to this stuff. Loftus not so much. I wish he'd shut up, he's so desperate for attention and desperate for the approval of his far more educated and rigorous peers, ugh. It's disgusting. A blind man that has convinced himself and tries to convince others that he can see, even though the words he uses clearly reveal him fumbling in the dark.
He's embarrassing.
He is embarrassing. In his recent debates with Rauser, he didn't seem to understand what Rauser's point was half the time, and responded by changing the subject or by mumbling his usual mantras about "science denying".
Post a Comment