paper-machine comments on The Statistician's Fallacy - Less Wrong

38 Post author: ChrisHallquist 09 December 2013 04:48AM

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

Comments (67)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 12 December 2013 12:26:20AM *  1 point [-]

[They were also complaining about] my own implied support for Bayesianism over frequentism.

I don't see that anywhere. It's clear the majority of LessWrong (the actual subject of Ilya's actual sentences) thinks Bayesian statistics (who was talking about epistemology?) is better -- with the possible exception of gwern, who uses whatever is most pragmatic (and who I personally think is the actual winner of this debate).

Ilya comes across as not being aware of how much Eliezer and other people here have written about that debate. In fact, it's not even clear to me if he understands what someone like Eliezer (or for that matter, an academic epistemologist) means when they say "Bayesianism."

Even a casual examination of their comment record (or, alternatively, a Google search) would have demonstrated that you're completely wrong in your assessment. I don't know any other regular on the site that knows more about statistics.

Comment author: Cyan 13 December 2013 04:40:50AM 3 points [-]

I don't know any other regular on the site that knows more about statistics.

Allow me to introduce myself. I make my living as a biostatistician; I am philosophically a Jaynesian, in practice a statistical ecumenist. (I don't know and don't claim to know causal inference in anything like the depth that Ilya does -- that's his specialty, just like mine is Bayesian modeling.)

Comment author: [deleted] 13 December 2013 06:35:57PM 1 point [-]

Nice to meet ya! Consider myself updated :)