Oh, I see my ambiguity. I just meant Bayesian inference, not Bayesian theory of mind.
-
-
Replying to @JCSkewesDK @o_guest and
Ah, you meant Bayesian inference by the scientist? Then understood!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @JCSkewesDK and
Here's something that helps I think for those who haven't been exposed before. I'm not equivocating between theory and spec but they can serve a similar role. https://figshare.com/articles/Varieties_of_Reproducibility_in_Empirical_and_Computational_Domains/6818018 …pic.twitter.com/3GTTzV3gIH
2 replies 3 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @IrisVanRooij and
Brain still melting here but I need to take a transatlantic flight so gotta be strong.

2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
-
Also within each implementation there are experiments which also of course belong to the model and the theory but given the implementation contains details specific just to it the experiment can have different repercussions for each box.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Thanks so much for this
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JCSkewesDK @twitemp1 and
I'm sure people have written this up in many places already but I'm also sure people who do modelling or are adjacent to modellers often aren't exposed to this. Maybe I should write a blog post?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
OK, when I'm back I'll spare some time! I'll circulate it privately first too, so lemme know if you're up for feedback/proofing/etc. I'd be terribly indebted. 
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.

