orthonormal comments on Bayes' rule =/= Bayesian inference - Less Wrong

37 Post author: neq1 16 September 2010 06:34AM

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

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: orthonormal 17 September 2010 12:01:41AM 0 points [-]

You can dismiss this objection by replacing the coin with a novel experimental test with an easily computed expected probability of success– say, the very first test of spin-up vs. spin-down for silver atoms.

Frequentists can't claim relevant data sets for every experiment that has an obvious prior, without engaging in their own form of reference class tennis.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 20 September 2010 03:59:42PM 0 points [-]

How can they have an obvious prior without an obvious relevant data set?