He does mention Bayes elsewhere in the book, so he knows what it is. But there's certainly little positive evidence for him having adopted Bayesian epistemology as a personal philosophy, which is rather more than knowing an equation.
But there's certainly little positive evidence for him having adopted Bayesian epistemology as a personal philosophy, which is rather more than knowing an equation.
So what do you think how much it would improve Dawkins general rationality to adapt it as a personal philosophy? Or would he have to read the sequences as well?
How much below the standards of Less Wrong do you think he currently is?
Here is Dawkins on AI and the Singularity.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic
Apparently Dawkins and Tyson give a non-zero probability to "God". Which is pretty much what is expected of a rational person. And of course it will be used by theists to say "They aren't really sure!"