@tipsfromkatee Yes, well, I was skeptical too! :-) But I still don't see how you can apply Bayes in any but a few narrow situations.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness the point isn't always to apply it, but to use it as a framework to think about what one does apply3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@Meaningness e.g. one doesn't use quantum field theory to predict the motion of ordinary objects, but any shortcuts one uses to predict...3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@Meaningness ...such motion must yield accurate results in any universe described (on a much deeper level) by quantum field theory2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee , but Bayesianism is <1% of a theory of understanding.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness it's a complete theory of how to solve a particular class of problems (figure out posteriors given priors and evidence)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GapOfGods
@tipsfromkatee But that is a trivial class of problems, as is proven by the fact that the complete theory is "divide the two numbers".4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness it doesn't matter how "trivial" it is if people get it grossly wrong a lot1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness i would also agree that most rationality mileage is not directly related to differences between bayesianism and frequentism3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@tipsfromkatee Probability is probably the point of maximal leverage for popular education, however!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.