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.

Matt_Simpson 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.

Comments (89)

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

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 10 November 2012 04:44:18AM 1 point [-]

I poked around, but couldn't find anything where Mayo talked about Cox's Theorem and it's premises. Did you have something particular in mind?

Comment author: Cyan 12 November 2012 05:13:43AM 3 points [-]

Ah, found it:

We know, infer, accept, and detach from evidence, all kinds of claims without any inclination to add an additional quantity such as a degree of probability or belief arrived at via, and obeying, the formal probability calculus.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 12 November 2012 05:58:47AM 2 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: Cyan 10 November 2012 05:47:29AM *  2 points [-]

As far as I know, she is not familiar with Cox's Theorem at all, nor does she explicitly address the premise in question. I've been following her blog from the start, and I tried to get her to read about Cox's theorem two or three times. I stopped after I read a post which made it clear to me that she thinks that encoding the plausibility of a claim with a single real number is not necessary -- not useful, even -- to construct an account of how science uses data to provide a warrant for a scientific claim. Unfortunately I don't remember when I read the post...