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.

dbaupp comments on Attempt to explain Bayes without much maths, please review - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: David_Gerard 06 August 2011 09:24AM

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

Comments (26)

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

Comment author: dbaupp 06 August 2011 11:02:41AM 1 point [-]

Ah, that sentence makes sense, I just couldn't work out the syntax ("specificity" just didn't seem to fit in). My problem, not yours :)

I didn't explain it clearly at all, but the point I was trying to make was that there is quite a bit of "technical" language/jargon which acts as a stopsign (and/or induces blankness). "Prior" doesn't really fit into this category, but "probability distribution" does, and the Wikipedia article (probably) doesn't really help people from your target audience.

I would suggest removing the term completely (or maybe having the technical term in a parenthetical statement) e.g.

The prior is not a number, but a measurement of the probability of each of a spectrum of possible alternatives