= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nick_Tarleton comments on The uniquely awful example of theism - 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 (169)
I'm glad to know that we are so much more advanced at being Bayesian rationalists than silly folks like Robert Aumann or, uh, the Reverend Thomas Bayes.
Yes, I'm being snide, but this sounds a bit too self-congratulating. Are we really in a position to be all but saying "these specific beliefs are a prerequisite for posting"?
Regarding the good Reverend, we stand on the shoulders of giants that came after him, and are lucky enough to find ourselves in a more tolerant environment. And Laplace independently went further than Bayes not that much later, and had no need of that hypothesis.
Did komponisto say that? I read "expect" as descriptive, not normative.
The bit about Rev. Bayes was something of a cheap shot, I admit. My impression has actually been that Bayes himself was a mostly unremarkable scholar (compared to someone like Laplace, that is!) and quite possibly would not even agree with modern Bayesian statistics.
I read it as a bit of both. If I was incorrect to do so, mea culpa and apologies to komponisto.