= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
endoself comments on In Defense of Objective Bayesianism: MaxEnt Puzzle. - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (11)
A subjective probability is not arbitrary. It is the most accurate estimate possible given the evidence to the subject. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/s6/probability_is_subjectively_objective .
I think you're misunderstanding me, but I can't think of a way to better phrase what I said, sorry.
Maybe if I put it thus: I can't think of a situation where some evidence E will make my posterior probability P(A|E) greater than 0.8 regardless of my prior P(A).
Yeah, re-reading the quote, I see what you mean. He seems to have confused a frequency with a probability distribution over possible values of the frequency. Maybe that's why he made the other error that the post discusses.