jimrandomh comments on Your Strength as a Rationalist - Less Wrong

69 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 August 2007 12:21AM

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

Comments (113)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: SilasBarta 09 August 2010 10:01:28PM *  1 point [-]

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?

Comment author: jimrandomh 09 August 2010 10:32:21PM 2 points [-]

Hmm. Maybe the strength of the evidence isn't the right thing to use, but rather the confidence with which we know the sign of the correlation.