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

Jonathan_Lee comments on What is Bayesianism? - Less Wrong

81 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 26 February 2010 07:43AM

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

Comments (211)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Jonathan_Lee 26 February 2010 09:42:30AM 3 points [-]

It seems there are a few meta-positions you have to hold before taking Bayesianism as talked about here; you need the concept of Winning first. Bayes is not sufficient for sanity, if you have, say, an anti-Occamian or anti-Laplacian prior.

What this site is for is to help us be good rationalists; to win. Bayesianism is the best candidate methodology for dealing with uncertainty. We even have theorems that show that in it's domain it's uniquely good. My understanding of what we mean by Bayesianism is updating in the light of new evidence, and updating correctly within the constraints of sanity (cf Dutch books).

Comment author: Seth_Goldin 27 February 2010 05:03:07AM 2 points [-]

We can discuss both epistemic and instrumental rationality.

Comment author: prase 26 February 2010 10:41:45AM 2 points [-]

You are right that Bayesianism isn't sufficient for sanity, but why should it prevent a post explaining what Bayesianism is? It's possible to be a Bayesian with wrong priors. It's also good to know what Bayesianism is, especially when the term is so heavily used. My understanding is that the OP is doing a good job keeping concepts of winning and Bayesianism separated. The contrary would conflate Bayesianism with rationality.

Comment author: Kevin 26 February 2010 11:52:02AM *  3 points [-]

Jonathan's post doesn't seem like much of an argument but more of criticism. There's lots more to write on this topic.