# Audiobooks The Science of Conjecture Author James Franklin – Selindameditasyon.com

I m only giving this book 4 stars, because it was so far over my head Law intensive but I read it haha It is dense.Maybe one day I will find myself educated enough to give it another go. How did we make reliable predictions before Pascal and Fermat s discovery of the mathematics of probability inWhat methods in law, science, commerce, philosophy, and logic helped us to get at the truth in cases where certainty was not attainable In The Science of Conjecture, James Franklin examines how judges, witch inquisitors, and juries evaluated evidence how scientists weighed reasons for and against scientific theories and how merchants counted shipwrecks to determine insurance rates The Science of Conjecture provides a history of rational methods of dealing with uncertainty and explores the coming to consciousness of the human understanding of risk Not as entertaining or compelling a read as I expected I d put it down last year and picked it up again this year , but Franklin s sheer erudition is mind blowing his extensive, and almost exhaustive, sources include works in original Latin, Italian, German, and Spanish, for example As the author admits, there ARE a lot of quotes, many of which could have been made less perplexing with a bit of help and orientation from the author but then that may have gone a little against his policy of l Not as entertaining or compelling a read as I expected I d put it down last year and picked it up again this year , but Franklin s sheer erudition is mind blowing his extensive, and almost exhaustive, sources include works in original Latin, Italian, German, and Spanish, for example As the author admits, there ARE a lot of quotes, many of which could have been made less perplexing with a bit of help and orientation from the author but then that may have gone a little against his policy of letting the quotes speak for themselves This is a great work of scholarship From the ancients and their ideas of credibility to not exactly generalizable maxims about likelihood or reasonable doubt.Probability is the meta subject of meta subjects. If you have a formal science background, the only way in which you know probability is via assorted mathematical equations If you work in AI, you try to apply those equations or related things, like neural nets to solve tasks But if you work in AGI, you have to ask harder questions, like how does one know if something is true and what does it mean to know something and how can I prove that this is true and for that, math is insufficient The point is that courts of law use proofs If you have a formal science background, the only way in which you know probability is via assorted mathematical equations If you work in AI, you try to apply those equations or related things, like neural nets to solve tasks But if you work in AGI, you have to ask harder questions, like how does one know if something is true and what does it mean to know something and how can I prove that this is true and for that, math is insufficient The point is that courts of law use proofs all the time proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and this is NOT a statement about Bayesian inference So what is it It turns out that this is the highest form of a theory of probability developed by the medieval Scholastics, and survives unmodified to this very day in our legal system Franklin explains who the Scholastics are, why they did what they did, and why its important Well, he actually explains reviews much much , but this was my favorite, most memorable part So if you have that formal science background, this is a very refreshing and entertaining reminder that there s muchto probability than just equations, and how it is that we got to herechokengtitiktitikchokengs turns out Occam s Razor is a good bitsubtle than it s current modern day usage It was originally a statement about the nature of probability and proof, and how God evades it, when performing miracles The current, modern form of Occam s Razor was actually first stated by Aristotle what Occam did was add the twist about God There is no questioning the scholarship and thoroughness of this book The only problem is that it truly reads like a reference book And if it were sold as such I d easily give it 5 stars I m sure I ll be referring to it many times It does not overlook nonmathematical contributions to the science of conjecture and that s a big strength of the book, though it also forces the author to really cover a lot of material most wouldn t normally think of as directly related probability The closest There is no questioning the scholarship and thoroughness of this book The only problem is that it truly reads like a reference book And if it were sold as such I d easily give it 5 stars I m sure I ll be referring to it many times It does not overlook nonmathematical contributions to the science of conjecture and that s a big strength of the book, though it also forces the author to really cover a lot of material most wouldn t normally think of as directly related probability The closest it comes to a readable book is in the conclusion, but just enumerating the subsections fields in that chapter 12 can give some idea of how much is crammed into this book and its style Mathematics, Legal Theory, Political Theory, Economics, Psychology, Philosophy, Linguistics, Physics, Arithmetic, Geometry, Ethics, Anthropology, Hermeneutics, Knowledge Organization and Information Technology, Argument and Logic and a few others