Kaj_Sotala comments on What Bayesianism taught me - Less Wrong

62 Post author: Tyrrell_McAllister 12 August 2013 06:59AM

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

Comments (201)

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

Comment author: Watercressed 11 August 2013 02:24:18AM *  19 points [-]

A related mistake I made was to be impressed by the cleverness of the aphorism "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'." There may be a helpful distinction between scientific evidence and Bayesian evidence. But anecdotal evidence is evidence, and it ought to sway my beliefs.

Anecdotal evidence is filtered evidence. People often cite the anecdote that supports their belief, while not remembering or not mentioning events that contradict them. You can find people saying anecdotes on any side of a debate, and I see no reason the people who are right would cite anecdotes more.

Of course, if you witness an anecdote with your own eyes, that is not filtered, and you should adjust your beliefs accordingly.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 11 August 2013 03:44:21AM *  23 points [-]

Of course, if you witness an anecdote with your own eyes, that is not filtered

Unless you too selectively (mis)remember things.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 August 2013 05:14:55AM 21 points [-]

Unless you too selectively (mis)remember things.

Or selectively expose yourself to situations.

Comment author: Pentashagon 13 August 2013 06:26:01PM 2 points [-]

If I can always expose myself to situations in which I anecdotally experience success, isn't that Winning?

Comment author: wedrifid 14 August 2013 05:03:09AM *  0 points [-]

If I can always expose myself to situations in which I anecdotally experience success, isn't that Winning?

Yes. What it isn't is an unbiased scientific study. The anecdotal experience of situations which are selected to to provide success is highly filtered evidence.