You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

lukeprog comments on In Defense of Objective Bayesianism: MaxEnt Puzzle. - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Larks 06 January 2011 12:56AM

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

Comments (11)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: lukeprog 11 January 2011 04:46:12PM 2 points [-]

I contacted Williamson about this, and he wrote back:

If I remember rightly, Bacchus et al were suggesting that, if you all you learn is that 80% of all Scandinavians are Swedes then you should by default believe that Peterson is a Swede to degree 0.8 (with no assumption of random sampling). This seems right to me as a default principle, given that you fully believe that Peterson is Scandinavian. But the norms of subjectivism do not require you to set P(Peterson is a Swede|80% of all Scandinavians are Swedes) to be 0.8. Indeed this conditional probability can be more or less anything – it is subjective. So if it isn’t set to be 0.8 there is a mismatch between what Bayesian conditionalisation requires and the rational course of action.

I hope this makes more sense now, and apologise if the presentation in the book was a bit terse!

Comment author: Larks 12 January 2011 02:51:02PM 0 points [-]

Ahhh. Thanks for emailing, and for his relying.

It seems like you could just say, "The odds of a coin being heads are 1/2. However, subjectivism allows you to say they're 1 (or .9999 at any rate). Hence, subjectivism is wrong."