By coincidence, two blog posts went up today that should be of interest to people here.
Gene Callahan argues that Bayesianism lacks the ability to smoothly update beliefs as new evidence arrives, forcing the Bayesian to irrationally reset priors.
Tyler Cowen offering a reason why the CRU hacked emails should raise our confidence in AGW. An excellent exercise in framing an issue in Bayesian terms. Also discusses metaethical issues related to bending rules.
(Needless to say, I don't agree with either of these arguments, but they're great for application of your own rationality.)
Tyler Cowen offering a reason why the CRU hacked emails should raise our confidence in AGW...
That's not what he is saying. His argument is not that the hacked emails actually should raise our confidence in AGW. His argument is that there is a possible scenario under which this should happen, and the probability that this scenario is true is not infinitesimal. The alternative possibility - that the scientists really are smearing the opposition with no good reason - is far more likely, and thus the net effect on our posteriors is to reduce them - or a...
ITT we talk about whatever.