= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MartinB comments on The Fundamental Question - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (277)
That looks to me like applied rationality.
Yes – and rationality must be applied, or else it collapses into sophistry. That was the essential idea behind Something to Protect, for example.
Secondarily, asking this question may prevent a subset of disputes about definitions.
Fully agreed!
I still struggle with applying what I learn, or even having it available at the right time. But i make progress. How does the question prevent disputes about definitions? I fail to see that.
If Fred says, "The test scores of the group trained by method A is greater than that by method B at a 98% significance level, and therefore method A should be preferred", and Sheila says, "The Bayes factor between hypothesis M1, which assumes that method A and method B produce a similar distribution of test results, and M2, which predicts superior results from A, is 1:38, suggesting that method A is superior" ... they don't actually disagree. Both Fred and Sheila would recommend training by method A.
It's not a traditional dispute about definitions, but (for example) Sheila sniping at Fred for using frequentist methods would be inappropriate. If he genuinely deserves criticism, she will not need to wait long for an occasion where he is wrong.