Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

cousin_it comments on Bayesian Flame - Less Wrong

37 Post author: cousin_it 26 July 2009 04:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (155)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 26 July 2009 05:45:50PM *  2 points [-]

Thanks for the catch, struck out that part.

Yes, you can get your priors from the same source they get experimental setups: the world. Except this source doesn't provide priors.

ETA: likelihood ratios don't seem to communicate the same info about the world as confidence intervals to me. Can you clarify?

Comment author: conchis 26 July 2009 07:54:57PM *  1 point [-]

Wrong. If all black boxes do obey their specified formulas, then every single time you call the other person a liar, you will be wrong. P(wrong|"false") ~ 1.

Ok, bear with me. cousin_it's claim was that P(wrong|boxes-obey-formulas)<=.1, am I right? I get that P(wrong|"false" & boxes-obey-formulas) ~ 1, so the denial of cousin_it's claim seems to require P("false"|boxes-obey-formulas) > .1? I assumed that the point was precisely that the frequentist procedure will give you P("false"|boxes-obey-formulas)<=.1. Is that wrong?

Comment author: cousin_it 26 July 2009 09:58:57PM *  2 points [-]

My claim was what Eliezer said, and it was incorrect. Other than that, your comment is correct.

Comment author: conchis 26 July 2009 10:17:36PM 0 points [-]

Ah, I parsed it wrongly. Whoops. Would it be worth replacing it with a corrected claim rather than just striking it?

Comment author: cousin_it 26 July 2009 10:42:06PM *  0 points [-]

Done. Thanks for the help!