Scott Alexander defends Bayesianism as a valuable epistemology, contrasting it with absolutist and nihilistic approaches, and argues for its usefulness in complex reasoning.
Longer summary
Scott Alexander responds to David Chapman's criticism of 'Bayesianism' as a philosophy. He argues that Bayesianism is a genuine and valuable epistemology, contrasting it with two other approaches: Aristotelianism (which deals in absolutes) and Anton-Wilsonism (which advocates not believing anything). Scott posits that Bayesianism, or 'Epistemology X', is a synthesis of these, allowing for degrees of belief and updating based on evidence. He defends this view by sharing personal experiences and observations, arguing that while people may not always think in probabilities, having a coherent philosophical foundation like Bayesianism is valuable when dealing with complex issues outside one's comfort zone.
Shorter summary