= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Your Strength as a Rationalist - 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 (113)
I thought that "evidence", unmodified, would mean non-trivial evidence; otherwise, everything has to count as evidence because it will have some connection to the hypothesis, however weak. To specify a kind of evidence that includes the 1e-15 bit case, I think you would need to say "weak evidence" or "very weak evidence".
But I'm not the authority on this: How do others here interpret the term "evidence" (in the Bayesian sense) when it's unmodified?
I'm sympathetic to both views.
I have encountered a number of disputes that revolve around using these two different senses of the word, and am nonetheless blindsided by them consistently.
I try to always specify the strength of evidence in some sense when using the word. I think when I do use it unmodified I tend to use it in the technical sense (including even weak evidence).
It would be odd if 'evidence' excluded weak evidence, since then 'weak evidence' would be a contradiction in terms, or you could see people arguing things like "When I said 'weak evidence' I didn't mean the 1e-15 bit case, since that's not evidence at all!"