Thinking inductively is prone to error. This doesn't change if you choose to use a Bayesian approach. If you don't want error, first principles thinking is much

Thinking inductively is prone to error. This doesn't change if you choose to use a Bayesian approach. If you don't want error, first principles thinking is much more accurate. Some people discover it and think they've discovered the path to thinking without error, but actually first principles don't lead to no error - they lead to a deep and fundamental humility. I find the greatest proponents of Bayesian thinking to be in the rationalist community. So to get across just how wrong everyone is about just about everything pretty much always consider that the pejorative lessons on predictable irrationality and cognitive bias are delusions that come about through the flaws of statistical reasoning. From first principles we know that superhuman chess AI are also predictably irrational and cognitively biased, but that this isn't actually irrational or biased so as to desire us to abandon the choice. Even in chess - much simpler than reality - the correct solution was too large to fit within our universe. It is difficult to articulate the magnitude of this humility. We couldn't fit the chess solution into our universe, but how complex is chess relative to other problems? If the complexity of chess was a grain of sand or even a single atom than it would be an understatement to claim that the more general problems are only as large as our universe.