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

Bo102010 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: Bo102010 27 February 2010 12:45:11AM *  4 points [-]

I recently started working through this Applied Bayesian Statistics course material, which has done wonders for my understanding of Bayesianism vs. the bag-of-tricks statistics I learned in engineering school.

Comment author: Seth_Goldin 27 February 2010 01:34:59AM 4 points [-]

So I finally picked up a copy of Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, by E.T. Jaynes. It's pretty intimidating and technical, but I was surprised how much prose there is, which makes it surprisingly palatable. We should recommend this more here on Less Wrong.

Comment author: Erebus 04 March 2010 10:33:33AM 2 points [-]

Just remember that Jaynes was not a mathematician and many of his claims about pure mathematics (as opposed to computations and their applications) in the book are wrong. Especially, infinity is not mysterious.

Comment author: thomblake 04 March 2010 02:24:53PM 0 points [-]

Especially, infinity is not mysterious.

It should be obvious that infinity (like all things) is not inherently mysterious, and equally obvious that it's mysterious (if not unknown) to most people.

Comment author: Erebus 04 March 2010 05:24:29PM 0 points [-]

Infinity is mysterious was intended as a paraphrase of Jaynes' chapter on "paradoxes" of probability theory, and I intended mysterious precisely in the sense of inherently mysterious. As far as I know, Jaynes didn't use the word mysterious himself. But he certainly claims that rules of reasoning about infinity (which he conveniently ignores) are not to be trusted and that they lead to paradoxes.