= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Annoyance comments on The Trouble With "Good" - 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 (131)
"To a Bayesian, this would be balderdash."
Um, not the 'Bayesians' here. There is a distinct failure to acknowledge that not everything is evidence regarding everything else.
If the people here wished to include the behavior of a political candidate's supporter in their evaluation of the candidate, they'd make excuses for doing so. If they wished to exclude it, they would likely pass over it in silence - or, if it were brought up, actively denigrate the idea.
Judging what is and is not evidence is an important task that has been completely ignored here.
In the most literal, unbounded application of Bayesian induction, anything within the past light cone of what is being considered counts as "evidence". Clearly, an immense majority of it is all but completely independent of most propositions, but it is still evidence, however slight.
Having cleared up that everything is evidence, determining the weight to give any particular piece of evidence is left as an exercise for the reader.