= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JQuinton comments on More "Stupid" Questions - 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 (495)
If you can use Bayes Theorem to see what the evidence does to the probability of a hypothesis, can you also use BT to see what happens to the hypothesis upon the absence of evidence?
Or, if you can use P(H | E) = P(E | H)*P(H) / P(E) Can you formulate it as P(H | ~E) = P(~E | H) * P(H) / P(~E) for absence of evidence?
Indeed. To put it another way, "absence of evidence" is just a different kind of evidence. If hearing a dog bark would tell you something then not hearing it bark also tells you something.
Yes.