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.

Sniffnoy comments on XKCD - Frequentist vs. Bayesians - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: brilee 09 November 2012 05:25AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (89)

Comments (89)

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

Comment author: Cyan 09 November 2012 07:56:51PM 3 points [-]

why can't they admit they're approximations to something else, rather than come up with this totally new, counter-intuitive epistemology where it's not allowed to assign probabilities to fixed but unknown parameters

Because they don't accept the premises of Cox's theorem -- in particular, the one that says that the plausibility of a claim shall be represented by a single real number. I'm thinking of Deborah Mayo here (referenced upthread).

Comment author: Sniffnoy 09 November 2012 11:31:22PM 2 points [-]

So, as to Savage's theorem...?

Comment author: Cyan 10 November 2012 05:54:11AM 3 points [-]

I'd expect Mayo to say something along the lines of -- translating on the fly into LW-ese -- preferences ought not to enter into the question of how best to establish map-territory correspondence.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit