fubarobfusco comments on Avoid inflationary use of terms - Less Wrong

74 Post author: lsparrish 30 May 2012 08:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 June 2012 08:36:18AM *  9 points [-]

(Agree, expanding.)

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.

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".

Comment author: fubarobfusco 03 June 2012 02:49:40AM 3 points [-]

Yes. Alternately, "Bayesian evidence" suggests to me "evidence — but don't think I mean evidence that completely rules out other possibilities."