= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Cthulhoo comments on Rationality Quotes June 2013 - 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 (778)
I'm not sure I understood what you mean, but I guess you're thinking about cases where you can't have a "perfect experimental setup" to collect information. Well, in this case one should do the best with the information one has (though information can also be collected from other external sources of course). Sometimes there's simply not enough information to identify with sufficient certainty the best course of action, so you have to go with your best guess (after a risk/reward evaluation, if you want).
Sorry, I wasn't very clear.
I meant that if you have a deep misunderstanding of what's going on, as here, what do you do about it?
Well, it's somewhat hidden in steps 2 and 3. You have to be able to correctly state your hypothesis and to indentify all the possible variables. Consider chocolate water: your hipothesis is "There exist some brands of water that tastes like chocolate candy". Let's say for whatever reson you start with a prior probability p for this hypothesis. You then try some brands, find that none tastes like chocolate candy, and should therefore apply bayes and emerge with a lower posterior. What's much more effective, though, is evaluating the evidence you already have that induced you to believe the original hypothesis. What made you think that water could taste like chocolate? A friend told you? Did it appear in the news? In the more concrete cases: