= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on Avoid inflationary use of terms - 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 (90)
"Bayesian evidence" has sometimes been inflated from "evidence as mathematically measured by Bayesian probability theory" to simply mean "evidence, but it sounds so much more sciencey and rational to call it 'Bayesian'", or further to mean "not just useful evidence, but useless evidence as well".
Just use the googlebox here for the phrase "is Bayesian evidence for" to see what I'm talking about. Or Google itself -- there are only 7 hits, three of them to LW.
(Agree, expanding.)
That phrase makes sense when describing evidence that is not considered evidence according to other standards - such as science or traditional rationalism. For example "Absence of evidence is (Bayesian) evidence of absence".
Yes. Alternately, "Bayesian evidence" suggests to me "evidence — but don't think I mean evidence that completely rules out other possibilities."