= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Open thread, October 2011 - 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 (308)
The probability is already just an expression of your own uncertainty. Giving a confidence interval over the probability does not make sense.
If you can have a 95% confidence interval, why can't you have a >50% confidence interval as well?
50% confidence intervals are standard practice. But not the point and not what I questioned.
There is no way in which my comment can be read which would make your reply make sense in the context.