= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Bayesians vs. Barbarians - 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 (270)
Further complications aren't relevant to the main point. Do you understand the theory of the basic example now, or do you not?
Yes, I understand the theory.
OK then. You can of course add additional factors to the basic model, and some of these will mitigate or even overwhelm the original effect. No problem with that. However, your original mathematical intuition about the basic model was mistaken, and that's what I was talking to you about.
In general: let's say someone proposes a simple mathematical model X for phenomenon Y, and the model gives you conclusion Z.
It's always a complicated matter whether X is really a good enough model of Y in the relevant way, and so there's a lot of leeway granted on whether Z should actually be drawn from Y.
However, it's a simple mathematical fact whether Z should be drawn from X or not, and so a reply that gets the workings of X wrong is going to receive vigorous criticism.
That's all I have to say about that. We cool?
It is a longstanding policy of mine to avoid bearing malice toward anyone as a result of strictly theoretical matters. In short, yes, we cool.