= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed comments on Bayes' rule =/= Bayesian inference - 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 (70)
I asked this before (though perhaps with the wrong symbols), so I'll try it a different way.
Someone please evaluate this statement:
?equals(correct reasoning, Bayesian inference)
There are a (pretty common) class of reasoning problems for which equals(correct reasoning, Bayesian inference) is widely believed here in LW. There are other problems and other forms of correct reasoning for which Bayesian inference is simply inapplicable.
For example, the following syllogism cannot be completed by Bayesian inference.
A. Nothing is better than total happiness.
B. A paper clip is better than nothing.
C. ???
This is a fallacious amphiboly, so it's deductively wrong. There's no need to even bring up induction here, and Bayesian inference is for induction. It's a category error to criticize that Bayesian inference doesn't apply. It would be like asking Bayesian inference to cook me dinner.
That's not a very good example, because a paperclip is, in fact, better than happiness. At least, human::happiness.
This is a great LW name.