= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on You can't believe in Bayes - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
I don't know how I can re-explain it other than just repeating the examples in my post. People see that proposition X implies action A. They then try to decide whether they believe X. If they don't, they don't take action A. This is wrong.
Also, "I believe it's possible that I'll die in a car accident" is a statement of certainty. Parse it.
The solution to this isn't to reject the very useful concept of belief (which is already generally used to mean "probability 1 minus epsilon" by many people), but to
Yes. Belief is still useful. It's mainly in situations where a low-probability outcome has a high cost or benefit that it causes problems.
It looks like I agree with you but disagree with your original post. What's the problem with saying we believe Bayes' Theorem, and clarifying if asked that we ascribe probability 1 minus epsilon to it?
The rest of your post is of value, but the "You can't believe in Bayes' Theorem" hook goes awry.
Fair enough.