I was actually responding to @o_guest's "p-hacking" comment. But she had already moved on to Bayesianism.
-
-
Replying to @Ugnudabul @richarddmorey
your response was to the Bayes comment hence extreme confusion
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
ironically tho you are not the only person to pit science against Bayes (not recommended) http://lesswrong.com/lw/qa/the_dilemma_science_or_bayes/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @richarddmorey
ok that one is making my head spin. I'm going to have to mull it over
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ugnudabul @richarddmorey
don't please. That's a trash bin.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
here's a quick low down on how trash that website is http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
there's no such thing as science vs Bayes
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @richarddmorey
Gotcha. But still, all the Bayesian language about "degree of belief" and such has always made me uncomfortable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest @richarddmorey
I just hate using the word "belief". Instead of saying "I believe X," why not say "X seems to fit the data"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
that is not how Bayesian stats works (!!!)... A prior is initially not based on any data if you so wish it to be!
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @richarddmorey
No, but it is based on your prior experience. In my book that counts as "data".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 10 more replies
New conversation -
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.
