= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Ezekiel comments on Hearsay, Double Hearsay, and Bayesian Updates - 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 (105)
I like the idea of capping the length of an admissible chain of hearsay, but whenever I hear about a rule like that, I always think of the risk that you'll miss an obviously true conclusion just because the evidence wasn't admissible. Of course, that's a silly argument, since we have lots of such limits and they're not something I disagree with.
The obvious solution to this entire debate is to teach people a basic understanding of practical probability, but I guess you work with what you've got...
Incidentally, is the title a deliberate play on "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"? I couldn't work it out.
I think it's just the standard "a thing, another thing, and yet one more additional thing". A common species, of which "lies damned lies, and statistics" is another example.
But it's a more specific pattern than that: "X, adjective X, and Scientific Term".