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

PhilGoetz 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. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 27 February 2010 05:46:07AM -1 points [-]

That's like saying that Sunni beliefs boil down to belief in Islam.

Comment author: brazil84 27 February 2010 06:06:26AM 3 points [-]

Following your analogy, what is the equivalent to Shia Islam?

Put another way: Bayesianism as opposed to what?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 03 March 2010 08:32:35PM *  1 point [-]

Frequentism, according to the posters here. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by thinking of a belief in terms of probabilities.

Comment author: wnoise 03 March 2010 09:22:39PM 5 points [-]

But the standard Frequentist stance is that probabilities are not degrees of belief, but solely long term frequencies in random experiments.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 03 March 2010 10:50:28PM 3 points [-]

Most "frequentists" aren't such sticklers about terminology. Most people who attach probabilities to beliefs in knowledge representations - say, AI systems - are more familiar with frequentist than Bayesian methodology.

Comment author: wnoise 03 March 2010 11:48:22PM 3 points [-]

Okay, so most people who use statistics don't know what they're talking about. I find that all too plausible.

Comment author: brazil84 03 March 2010 09:29:05PM 0 points [-]

Frequentism, according to the posters here

I looked up "Frequentism" on Wikipedia . . . .I don't understand your point.

What concept am I omitting by characterizing "Bayesianism" the way I did?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 03 March 2010 10:48:08PM 3 points [-]

Google frequentist instead of frequentism. It's the usual way of doing statistics and working with probabilities.

Comment author: brazil84 04 March 2010 12:11:44AM 0 points [-]

I did and I still don't understand your point.

Again my question: Exactly what concept am I omitting by characterizing "Bayesianism" the way I did?

Comment author: Cyan 04 March 2010 12:21:42AM 0 points [-]

I PM'ed you regarding this thread. (I mention it here because I seem to recall that you're subject to a bug that prevents you from getting message/reply notifications.)