= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on 2012 Survey Results - 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 (640)
Half of statistics these days is Bayesian. Do you want to defend the claim that statistics solves no notable problems?
As usual, I add my downvote to whining about downvotes. Since you think it's 'typical' and this vindicates your claims, I'm sure you'll be pleased that I'm helping prove you right.
Great. Then the UK education sytem is exactly right in teaching Bayes as part of statitistics, but not as a general-prupose solution to everything. ETA: But surely the LW take on Bayes is that it is much more than something useful in statistics.
No, I want to defend the claims that Bayes is not as a general-prupose solution to everything, is not a substitute for other congnitive disciplines, is of no benefit to many people and is of no use in many contexts.
Please inform me of the correct way to indicate that the karma system is being misused.
Now you're just backing off your claim. What happened to your list?
First point: if Bayesian statistics is half of statistics, the description of the UK course is of it as being way way less than half the course. Therefore the UK system is very far from being 'exactly right'.
Second point: The optimistic meta-induction is that Bayesian statistics has gone from being used by a literal handful of statisticians to being widespread and possibly a majority now or in the near future; therefore, it will continue spreading and eating more of statistics in general, and the course will get wronger and wronger, and your claims less and less right.
So you're just splashing around a lot of bullshit and distractions when you demand lists and talk about the UK course being exactly right, since those aren't what you are actually trying to claim. Good to know!
What's the point of indicating when it's not being misused?
I am not going to give a full response, because your comments are obstreporous, but See RichardKennaway's discussion for LW's oeverarching hopes for Bayes, and its limitations
You have your opinion, on that, I have mine. You can state your opinion, I can't state mine. I can't discuss the censorship, because discussions of censorship are censored.
You're stating it right now. Oh the ironing.
It's in a downvoted thread.So it isn't visible.If negative karma doesn't do anything regarding the visibility of comments, why have the button? Sheesh.
And so begins the equivocation on 'people have to click a button to see it' with 'censorship'.
And so I ask you a second time: what is the button for?
And so begins another goal-shifting, like the list or like the claim of 'censorship', this time to defining karma systems. Pardon me if I don't care to continue this game.
OK. You cannot give an answer that will not embarass yourself. Got that.