Popper and Trump as a Russian Agent

17:14		*** SimpleJak joined #obama
17:14	laceless	raindonna returns again!
17:14	AndroidUS	yupe
17:15	AndroidUS	hah
17:16	AndroidUS	wait for it...
17:16	AndroidUS	he's on a mission from God
17:17	AndroidUS	Raindonna, gives us a break tonight
17:18	Popper	raindonna is a he?
17:18	|werejag|	IT
17:18	Popper	is that a gender thing?
17:18	Popper	I believe the right pronoun is THEY
17:19	|werejag|	yes
17:19	|werejag|	they?
17:19	Popper	yeah
17:19	|werejag|	no it, she him
17:19	Popper	laceless, THEY is a loser
17:19	Popper	I'm not sure how the verb conjugation goes
17:20	Popper	dez_ probably knows it
17:20	Popper	hey dez_
17:20	SimpleJak	Popper: What is example evidence that shows Trump is not a Russian agent?
17:20	Popper	SimpleJak, I don't need to prove a negative
17:20	Popper	SimpleJak, you're the you making the claim, the burden of proof is on you
17:21	SimpleJak	I provided evidence in support of this model yesterday.
17:21	SimpleJak	Do you recall that?
17:21	SimpleJak	Popper: Burden of proof has been subsumed in contemporary epistemology.
17:21	SimpleJak	It's now called 'Bayesian inference'.
17:21	Popper	SimpleJak, kind of, I remember something
17:22	Popper	SimpleJak, what? burden of proof has been replaced by bayesian inference?
17:22	SimpleJak	What is left of 'burden of proof', after probability distributions as priors, and probability distributions over evidence, leading to posterior distributions on models, is exactly zero.
17:22	SimpleJak	Popper: Yes.
17:22	Popper	SimpleJak, do you know what a probability distribution is?
17:22	SimpleJak	Popper: I am a data scientist.
17:22	Popper	SimpleJak, that doesn't answer my question
17:22	SimpleJak	Yes, it does, with high confidence.
17:23	SimpleJak	You wish to know the value at a node in a Bayesian network.
17:23	SimpleJak	I updated the Bayesian network by changing the value of a different node in that network.
17:23	SimpleJak	Your posterior on the node of interest changed dramatically.
17:23	Popper	SimpleJak, I'm not sure what it is you're claiming but, I would like to see the prior probability distribution on whatever it is your using as a premise
17:23	Popper	*you're
17:24	SimpleJak	Popper: Estimating probabilities for rare events is difficult.
17:24	SimpleJak	We can adopt a kind of 'subjective Bayesianism'.
17:24	Popper	lol
17:24	Popper	SimpleJak, we can?
17:24	Popper	so.. we just assume there is a prior
17:24	SimpleJak	Popper: Laughter is incongruous, in many cases, with philosophy.
17:25	Popper	isn't that the WHOLE ISSUE with bayesian probability?
17:25	SimpleJak	Laughter often indicates -- as it does in this case -- that the brain is surprised and doesn't know how to respond to an observed phenomenon.
17:25	SimpleJak	It's surpised + social derision, in many cases.
17:25	SimpleJak	The inability to manage the social derision is the part that is incongruous.
17:25	Popper	SimpleJak, you seem to be making an assumption and then generalizing it
17:26	SimpleJak	Please explicate "WHOLE ISSUE".
17:26	SimpleJak	Popper: Subjective Bayesianism is a named entity.
17:26	SimpleJak	You can make a reasonable guess as to the prior and then vigorously follow the evidence post hoc and you'll end up with good beliefs.
17:26	Popper	SimpleJak, the reality is, I just thought your "<SimpleJak> We can adopt a kind of 'subjective Bayesianism'." comment was very "convenient"
17:26	SimpleJak	I believe you believe that.
17:26	Popper	so I typed in LOL, I didn't actually laugh out loud but I did find it funny
17:26	SimpleJak	Your mind appears to have concocted a narrative in which I have bad intentions to distort reality for my own desires.
17:27	SimpleJak	So, it appears that I have made up this thing called 'subjective Bayesianism' that warrants me having weak evidence for my priors.
17:27	Popper	SimpleJak, yep, that's my current opinion of you
17:27	SimpleJak	Popper: I believe you.
17:28	Popper	SimpleJak, it looks like you're using concepts loosely in order to justify a prior belief. You're looking for theoretical justification of a personal belief and that's anti-scientific. At least that's my opinion of it
17:29	SimpleJak	The fact that I am able to subsume all of your claims into a more complex and nuanced mental structure -- the superlative evidence of higher intelligence and/or understanding -- is not probative in your mind you should learn from me.
17:29	Popper	SimpleJak, now if you can provide a prior distribution that will in fact PROVE your conclusion is legitimate, I will gladly change my mind
17:29	SimpleJak	Popper: It appears you are somewhat inexperienced in conducting Bayesian analysis.
17:29	SimpleJak	You cannot always have rigorous priors.
17:29	Popper	SimpleJak, I don't think you are "able to subsume all of your claims into a more complex and nuanced mental structure", I don't think that's true
17:30	SimpleJak	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
17:30	RoboTurmp	[ Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia ] - https://goo.gl/ySqv6a
17:30	dez_	SimpleJak: do you speak with complex words when youre hitting on someone?
17:31	Popper	SimpleJak, if you don't have a known prior, how can you be so certain it exists? Isn't that whole issue with bayesian probability?
17:31	SimpleJak	Requiring rigorous priors on all beliefs is an example of the infinite regress problem in epistemology.
17:31	SimpleJak	Popper: Do you see that?
17:31	SimpleJak	That you are arguing for universal skepticism as a result of a need for an infinite regress of propositions.
17:31	SimpleJak	Yet, science exists.
17:31	Popper	SimpleJak, that's not what I asked at all
17:31	SimpleJak	Popper: This is essential.
17:32	SimpleJak	Let us pause for a moment here.
17:32	Popper	SimpleJak, science exists, that doesn't mean your statement is scientific
17:32	SimpleJak	Popper: You don't yet grasp the significance of your request.
17:32	Popper	maybe not, but then again I'm not claiming anything
17:32		*** SimpleJak was kicked by AndroidUS (let's not)
17:32		!!! You have been kicked from #obama
17:32		*** SimpleJak joined #obama
17:32	SimpleJak	1. I have stated I don't have an especially rigorous prior on Trump being a Russian agent, but that it's okay, because of subjective Bayesianism.
17:33		*** SimpleJak was kicked by AndroidUS (let's not)
17:33		!!! You have been kicked from #obama
17:33		*** SimpleJak joined #obama
17:33		*** SimpleJak was kicked by AndroidUS (let's not)
17:33		!!! You have been kicked from #obama
17:33		*** SimpleJak joined #obama
17:33	SimpleJak	2. You have stated this is unacceptable, as we need rigorous priors for every model.
17:33	Popper	simpleJak: I'm not sure it's ok
17:33		*** SimpleJak was kicked by AndroidUS (let's not)
17:33		!!! You have been kicked from #obama
17:34		*** SimpleJak joined #obama
17:34	SimpleJak	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
17:34	RoboTurmp	[ Infinite regress - Wikipedia ] - https://goo.gl/ftGFtD
17:34	SimpleJak	3. Requiring rigorous priors for all models is a restatement of the infinite regress problem.
17:34	SimpleJak	4. The infinite regress problem does not stop science from working/existing.
17:35	SimpleJak	5. There is a reasonable solution to the infinite regress problem, then, disproving (2).
17:35	SimpleJak	Accepted?
17:35	laceless	They don't have to be RIGOROUS, you moron, just JUSTIFIABLE.
17:35	SimpleJak	Popper: I have intentionally stayed in this space because I wanted to make this point.
17:35		*** SimpleJak was kicked by AndroidUS (God is Dead, Homer)
17:35		!!! You have been kicked from #obama
17:36		*** SimpleJak joined #obama
17:36	SimpleJak	There is a way to generate a reasonable prior in this case: Use a uniform probability on the number of Russian agents in the USA.
17:36	SimpleJak	We can then starting creating inference chains from that uniform -- very low probability -- using facts about Trump.
17:36	SimpleJak	For example, he is wealthy, he is from Manhattan, he has visited Russia, etc.
17:36		*** SimpleJak was kicked by |werejag| (SimpleJak)
17:36		!!! You have been kicked from #obama
...
17:35		*** SimpleJak joined #political
Welcome to #political | Safe to agree or disagree without being banned | Bot cmds .c <alt>  ..altcoins  .cm <alt>
Topic set by mp3sum!doomed@mil.uk.to on Fri Feb 09 2018 14:17:12 GMT-0800 (PST)
17:35	Popper	hey SimpleJak
17:35	Popper	here's the thing
17:36	Popper	if you're claiming there's "proof" trump is a russian spy, you need to provide evidence that will better explain his behavior than any other alternative explanation
17:36	Popper	and even if you do that, some might still reject the idea that it's "proof"
17:37	Popper	to be honest
17:37	Popper	I'm surprised you're trying to "prove" something as abstract as that, to me that's misunderstanding what a proof is supposed to be
17:37	SimpleJak	Popper: Proof doesn't exist as a concept in Bayesian infernece.
17:37	SimpleJak	There is only posterior probability distributions.
17:37	SimpleJak	We can impose an acceptable threshold of acceptable evidence.
17:38	Popper	SimpleJak, fine a probabilistical reason to believe in your claim
17:38	SimpleJak	There is a way to generate a reasonable prior in this case: Use a uniform probability on the number of Russian agents in the USA.
17:38	SimpleJak	We can then starting creating inference chains from that uniform -- very low probability -- using facts about Trump.
17:38	SimpleJak	For example, he is wealthy, he is from Manhattan, he has visited Russia, etc.
17:38	Popper	now you're picking variables
17:38	Popper	this is a really, really abstract claim
17:38	SimpleJak	The claim that "Donald Trump is a Russian agent" is a "really, really abstract claim"?
17:39	SimpleJak	It seems to be a very concrete claim.
17:39	SimpleJak	Without uncertain truth value.
17:39	SimpleJak	With*
17:39	SimpleJak	A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country while located in another host country, generally outside the protections offered to those working in their official capacity for a diplomatic mission. Foreign agents may be citizens of the host country. The term has broad application, and is also used (interchanged with "For
17:39	Popper	SimpleJak, define "russian agent".
17:39	SimpleJak	Popper: Do you accept that as a reasonable definition of agent?
17:39	SimpleJak	Then, replace "country" with "Russia".
17:39	Popper	SimpleJak, how does it end?
17:40	Popper	The term has broad application, and is also used (interchanged with "For... ?
17:40	SimpleJak	eign Object/Body") medically and scientifically to refer to viruses, tumours, objects and parasites within a host organism. In contemporary English, the term has a generally pejorative connotation.
17:40	Popper	your very definition states it has a broad definition
17:40	Popper	oh ok
17:40	SimpleJak	Popper: We are exploring a small subtree of the knowledge graph in the noosphere.
17:40	SimpleJak	We can only give so much detail on each node if we wish to reach the conclusion.
17:40	Popper	now I'd need a definition of what it means to "actively carry out the interests of a foreign country"
17:41	SimpleJak	We are doing a summarization -- the most essential aspect of intelligence.
17:41	SimpleJak	Summarization is one of the most important topics in machine learning.
17:41	Popper	SimpleJak, machine learning?
17:41	SimpleJak	Popper: Yes, for example, dimensionality reduction techniques.
17:41	Popper	why are you talking about machine learning?
17:41	SimpleJak	Because machine learning is equivalent to 'superlative epistemology'.
17:41	SimpleJak	And you have questions about 'how do we know stuff, SimpleJake?'.
17:42	SimpleJak	A brief aside.
17:42	SimpleJak	So, we have a reasonable definition of 'Russian agent'.
17:42	SimpleJak	What are some of the most important goals of Russia/
17:42	SimpleJak	1. The breakup/weakening of NATO.
17:42	SimpleJak	2. A divided Europe
17:42	Popper	SimpleJak, you can't summarize things on your own will, pick variables, and then claim you have a legitimate model. Well, let me rephrase that. You can claim it, but you can't expect to be taken seriously
17:42	SimpleJak	3. Removal of Obama era sanctions and avoidance of Trump era sanctions.
17:42	SimpleJak	Do you agree these are three of the top geopolitical goals of Russia?
17:43	SimpleJak	Next, do you agree Trump's positions on all three of these issues is identical to Putin's?
17:43	Popper	SimpleJak, I don't believe I'm qualified (and neither are you) to label the "three of the top geopolitical goals of Russia"
17:43	Popper	I'll say that again
17:43	Popper	SimpleJak, I don't believe I'm qualified (and neither are you) to label the "three of the top geopolitical goals of Russia"
17:43	SimpleJak	Popper: I have read various analyses of Putin.
17:43	SimpleJak	Popper: I have seen interviews of Putin talking.
17:43	SimpleJak	These are three of the topic geopolitical goals of Russia.
17:44	SimpleJak	Their primary goal is 'reconstitution of the USSR'.
17:44	Popper	SimpleJak, that doesn't mean you're qualified to label the "three of the top geopolitical goals of Russia"
17:44	SimpleJak	Which Putin has described as the 'greatest tragedy of the 20th century'.
17:44	SimpleJak	Popper: I am synthesizing from Putin and high-level experts on Putin/Russia.
17:44	SimpleJak	It's okay if you're not educated on the top geopolitical goals of Russia.
17:45	SimpleJak	And, given that, it makes sense why you might be unsure of Trump is a Russian agent.
17:45	SimpleJak	Popper: Trump has consistently crafted false narratives about world events that tarnish NATO/Europe.
17:45	SimpleJak	Popper: Trump has stated Putin won't invade Ukraine -- after Putin invaded Ukraine.
17:45	SimpleJak	Popper: Trump criticized American foreign policy when asked if Putin was a bad guy.
17:45	Popper	SimpleJak, I don't believe someone who IS educated on the top geopolitical goals of russia would agree with your simplistic definitions
17:45	SimpleJak	Popper: Trump has refused to implement the new round of sanctions he signed into law.
17:45	Popper	alright SimpleJak, this isn't going anywhere
17:46	Popper	nice talking to you
17:46	SimpleJak	Popper: Trump has consistently denied Russia hacked the 2016 Elections.
17:46	drholiday	and proper lost another debate
17:46	SimpleJak	Popper: You are exiting the conversation upon me providing evidence.
17:46	SimpleJak	I wanted to point that out to you.
17:46	SimpleJak	The presentation of multiple, key pieces of evidence instantly frustrated you and led to your abandoning the conversation.
17:46	SimpleJak	Previously, before presentation of specific evidence, you criticized my general epistemic framework as not being specific.
17:46	Popper	SimpleJak, I don't think you are providing any evidence, that's why I'm exiting the conversation
17:46	SimpleJak	Therefore, you are unreachable on this topic.
17:47	drholiday	SimpleJak:  dont worry this is his debating tactics.
17:47	SimpleJak	Popper: I am no longer interested in engaging you on this topic.
17:47	SimpleJak	Popper: I have lowered the posterior on how much I value your mind, as a result of this conversation.
17:47	SimpleJak	Popper: I have saved this conversation for posterior; I will cite it when I criticize you, your ability on this topic, or your mental abilities more generally.
17:48	SimpleJak	drholiday: Thank you.
17:48	SimpleJak	I feel satisfied that most neutral observers would conclude that Popper was not effective in that discussion.