= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AlexMennen comments on How Much Evidence Does It Take? - 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 (29)
Clearly you understand me now, and I think that I understand you.
OK, if what is at issue here is whether Eliezer was sufficiently clear, then I'll bow out. Obviously, he was not sufficiently clear from your viewpoint. I will say, though, that your comment is the first time I have seen the word "evidence" used by a Bayesian for anything other than a log odds ratio.
Log odds evidence has the virtue that it is additive (when independent). On the other hand, your idea of a log probability meaning of 'evidence' has the virtue that a question can be decided by a finite amount of evidence.
Eliezer used it to mean log probability in the section that I quoted. That was what I was complaining about.
Ok, I think you are misinterpreting, but I see what you mean. When EY writes:
I take this as illustrating the definition of bits in general, rather than bits of 'evidence'. But, yes, I agree with you now that placing that explanation in a paragraph with that lead sentence promising a definition of 'evidence' - well it definitely could have been written more clearly.